In this Section
I. DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'HINDU':
The word 'Hindu' was first used by the Persians to refer to the
people who lived on the banks of the river Sindhu. The earlier
name found in the Epics and the Puranas is 'Bharata'.
II. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A HINDU:
A Hindu is one who believes in the authority of the Vedas,
Upanishads and the allied literature, believes in the existence
of the other world and of God, who observes the duties cast upon
him by virtue of the caste into which he is born and the stage of
life, and who believes in the doctrine of Karma and the
reincarnation of the soul. Hinduism is a way of life. It is not a
relic of the past; it is a 'live' force.
Another remarkable characteristic of a Hindu is his tolerance towards other religions. He not only tolerates them but also encourages them. He believes that God is one and that innumerable are his names. So says the Rigveda: "ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti" (What exists is One but the wise call it by different names).
The Hindu honours a cow, observes Ahimsa and worships woman as a goddess. He also follows his traditions handed down by a spiritual teacher.
III. HINDUISM IH THE MODREN PERIOD:
Hinduism has acquired in modern times, great
adaptability/flexibility/openness. Religious heads (samnyasins)
are nowadays crossing the oceans and coming to foreign countries
to spread their message. This was something unthinkable in the
past. Hinduism has found a fertile soil in the West. The Swami
Narayana Movement, the Ramakrishna Movement, the Movement of
ISKCON, organizations inspired by the teachings of Sri Ramana
Maharshi, Sri Satya Sai Baba, the Spiritual Regeneration Movement
of Mahesh Yogi, and the Sahaja Marga Movement started by Sri
Ramachandraji of Shahjahanpur (U.P., India) are examples in
point.
Not all Indians are Hindus, nor do all Hindus live in India. Still Hinduism is so linked with the land the life of India that it is impossible to understand the one without understanding the other. India is world in miniature with multi-lingual, multi-racial and multi-religious mosaic.
If we are to be united, then we must love one another; if we are to love one another, we must know and understand one another. If we are to know and understand one another, then we should meet one another, discuss and sort out differences. Understanding India and Hinduism holds the key to a better understanding of the world in which we are living now, wending our ways to the same goal, viz., reaching God.
2nd speaker: Francis X. Clooney, S.J.
Academic Director, Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu
Studies
When I was invited to speak to you this evening on the theme, "What is a Hindu?" (or, as I prefer, "Who's a Hindu?"), I was relieved to see that my reflections follow upon the detailed comments on my esteemed colleague at OCVHS, Prof. M. N. Narasimhachary. I would like to see my reflections, abbreviated and condensed as they are, as supplementary to his comments. I hope that together our comments will provide you with a sufficient basis to pursue the question, "Who's a Hindu?" on your own, individually and in family and community contexts.
We know, of course, that the discussion of the nature of Hinduism has a long history in Western scholarly circles. Scholars have expended great energy in seeking the essence of Hinduism or at least key defining features - such as polytheism, brahmanical values, caste, respect for the cow, etc. - which had to be present for Hindu identity; Julius Lipner, in The Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, begins by listing a long series of definitions and counterdefinitions that have been offered over the past several generations. As Lipner's list makes clear, the definitions are quite varied, some very specific, some vague, and some contrary to one another. Most such definitions seem to grasp some aspect of the truth, yet all also seem lacking. Today most Western scholars seem resigned to the inconclusiveness of the project of defining Hinduism. Some decline to use the word "Hinduism" at all, or prefer to use it only in the plural, "Hinduisms."
For our purposes, two questions follow: Why are Western scholars interested in this topic? Why should you, as members of the Indian community in the United Kingdom, be interested in the topic?
I. Deciphering the Western interest in this question
Why do Westerners ask the question? As with many other aspects of
the Hindu-Christian and Hindu-Western relationships, one can
better understand what Westerners and Christians think about
India by understanding what they think about themselves.
Essential to the quest to understand Hinduism is a still earlier
quest to understand Christianity. "What is Christianity, who is a
Christian?" may seem easier to answer, given the doctrinal
emphasis of some of the major Christian churches; but since
Christian life and practice are complex enough to elude doctrinal
fixity, and since there is great variety among kinds of
Christians - hundreds of denominations, cultural variations in
each part of the world - scholars have had a hard time pinning
down Christian identity, or even, as a matter of fact, who Jesus
was himself.
Part of the quest to define Christian identity was theoretical, but much of it had a very practical incentive. European Christians have fought one another rather frequently during the past few centuries, often (fairly or not) giving religious reasons to justify the violence. During the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Catholics and Protestants divided from one another, there was a great deal of bitterness in the arguments about which church was the most authentic Christian church. Out of the bitterness of that experience more reflective scholars and leaders sought to identify an essence of Christianity upon which all might agree, as distinct from various cultural accretions which could be put aside. If the essence was found, the non-essentials, over which people fight, could be put aside.
Over time, and particularly in the 18th century and thereafter, some thinkers went further, arguing that as much as possible the essence of "religion itself" should be identified and sorted out from culture; the idea was in part motivated by a quest to discover why people are religious in the first place, but also by a desire to narrow down what religion really is, and to cut that essence free from a much wider set of habits and beliefs which are optional and secondary to the essence of religion.
In part, then, Western curiosity about "the essence of Hinduism" simply mirrors Western curiosity about the essence of "Christianity" or of "religion" itself. At times, though, some scholars, particularly within the mission-oriented churches, wanted to understand the essence of other religions in order to compare and contrast them with the essence of Christianity. What one had defined and described could be handled properly. For instance, once the essence of Hinduism was discovered, it could be separated from the rest of "Indian culture," critiqued from various angles, and either purified or ultimately replaced with "the Christian religion."
In more recent times, much of the consideration of the question of "Hinduism" by Western scholars has been prompted by a simpler theoretical interest in religious studies, the science of religions, and comparative religion. Like scientists in the laboratory or historians in the archives, scholars have sought to determine what exactly it is that they are studying - "Christianity," "Hinduism," etc. - in order to engage in controlled study.
Finally (as mentioned above) it is also true that many recent scholars has come to the decision to avoid mention of "Hinduism," either not using the word at all, replacing it with more specific names, "Srivaisnavism," Kashmir Saivism," "the Swaminarayan community," etc., or only using the plural, "Hinduisms." This avoidance of "Hinduism" is often proposed, it should be noted, by professors who respect India greatly.
II. Why should this matter to you?
But perhaps none of this matters to you; perhaps many of you know
yourselves well enough to leave the question aside, but it can be
a real issue. While it is not my place to instruct you on what to
think about Hindu identity, since I am here I trust you will
allow me to make some suggestions, as follows, about why the
question should be of interest to you.
Surely there are answers in the tradition about Hindu identity, often with more or less specific appeals to the Veda, the Laws of Manu, dharmashastra, the sanatana dharma, vaidika rules for purity and eating and marriage, and so on. Such traditions are important and deserve respect. But it is also easy to accept them without thinking about them, and indeed without even knowing what actually is in the Veda or Manu or dharmashastra. It is not wise to appeal to sources for self-definition, if one has never read them. We must also raise a more delicate possibility: perhaps the brahmanical synthesis and its Sanskritic terminology is not a complete answer which will serve your future needs or do justice to your many local traditions. It will also be good to ask yourselves whether aspects of the vaidika dharma, such as varna and jati and certain sensitivities about purity and food, are really agreeable to you and really what you want to say about yourselves in the 21st century.
Another reason why you might want to discuss "who's a Hindu?" in some depth is that the question matters politically and socially in India today. As you know better than I, there is an ongoing debate over the present and future of Indian society, in the courts and politics and innumerable social settings. People, religious and non-religious, are asking whether there is a real difference between being Indian and being Hindu - or are all Indians by definition Hindu? Consequently, one can also ask whether there should be the implementation of a specific series of values - marked off by a term like "Hindutva" - that should serve to structure society properly. It may be that you, here in the UK, have the advantage of a view from the distance, so that you can help Indians in India resolve these issues with there social and political ramification. But you will be better able to help if you have some idea yourselves of the differences between being Indian and being Hindu, and some criteria by which to judge whether one or another definition of Hindu identity is too loose or too strict.
Political and social issues matter here too. I am sure you are all concerned about the quality of life in the UK, and would like to see values you care about enshrined in law and regulations, taken note of in the political process, honored by lawmakers. While influencing the public process need not be an overtly religious enterprise, it is nonetheless important to figure out what values you really care about and think most important. People will want to know, and you should know, whether you share a set of social and cultural values with others who call themselves Hindu, or whether "Hindu" is really so vague that it cannot be counted as a consistent voice in the life of the wider community here today.
More generally, another reason to think about Hindu identity is that you are living in the UK - some of you have immigrated, some of you were born here - in a culture where "religion" is one of the markers by which people identify themselves and others. While you might on your own not choose to call yourselves "Hindu," nevertheless (and despite drawbacks) religious labels are somewhat useful social markers here, and you may want to explain yourselves more clearly to your neighbors by respecting local customs. If you do use the word "Hindu" even casually, it is then wise to use the word properly and with a sense of a definition or definitions. Or you may be this or that kind of Hindu, just as there are Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists and other groups among Christians, Reformed, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims, etc. If you are not entirely secular, you can ask yourselves whether you want to present yourselves as Hindus, or Swaminarayans, or Saivas or devotees of Ganesha or Kali, and so forth.
But if you do describe yourselves as "Hindus" as least some of the time, then of course it is good to devise proper definitions that are accurate and make sense; to do this well, you probably need to be more familiar with how others among you believe and practice religiously. What was difficult in India, across the sweep of the subcontinent and so many local languages, is possible, easier, and perhaps necessary here. I wonder if you have enough knowledge of one another's traditions, their history, their doctrines. Do you visit each other's temples, and if you do, is it simply for darsan or do you learn about the community, its history, its art and music, its literature in the local language? Do you read the books of the different guru traditions? As you become familiar with each other's traditions, it will be good also to assess how your traditions are similar to and different from one another.
Then there is the matter of education: What does it mean to educate someone in the Hindu faith? Is there anything to be known in particular? Such questions are not just theoretical, since one can ask whether there is a set of specific, most important beliefs and values you really want to communicate to your children. Of the beliefs and values held dear by those of you are 60 or 40 or 30 years of age now, which beliefs and values do you want to make sure that your children still honor, and then pass on to their children? Such might be a clue as to what "Hindu" is all about, and will be about in the future.
So too some of you need to become ready to engage the academic world at the highest levels, particularly in the Humanities and particularly in theology, philosophy, and religious studies. Even on a practical level attention to higher education at the university level matters. It is important to find a place in the university curriculum for what you think needs to be known, regarding history and geography, music and art, philosophy and theology. There is no point in being content to have your traditions absent from the universities, or taught generically and vaguely and from a Western viewpoint, or only by scholars who do not call themselves Hindu. Even jobs are at stake: teaching positions and research opportunities will be more available if "Hinduism" is well established and recognized as relevant across the Humanities. For this to work on a practical level, when talking to administrators and faculty, it will be important not to use "Hinduism" merely in a generic and vague fashion. Decide what it is that should be taught, and what holds it all together, take to heart the values and questions of the modern academic world - and then see what kind of Hinduism emerges in research and teaching. Intellectually, then, there will be a need to determine how best to study the traditions grouped under titles such as "Hinduism" or "the Veda" or "the Vedic tradition", or with respect to particular deities, and to make sure that the important specific details are known and taught properly, in ways appropriate to the various levels of society. For this to be done, you need to make sure that there educated spokespersons in your midst who can use with ease the language of modern life in the West, intelligently discussing "religion" and "religions," "Hinduism," "Hindu traditions," and the array of specific traditions one tends to group under the "Hindu" title.
III. Who's not a Hindu?
I have offered a number of reasons, for your consideration, as to
why it matters for you to think more deeply about the meaning of
"Hindu identity" today. But if nonetheless it still remains
difficult to determine who is a Hindu, perhaps it will also be
helpful - and honest - for you to think about the category of
people you would consider not to be Hindu. It is not a question
of excluding some people or of being rude, nor has it anything to
do with intolerance; it is rather a matter of asking yourselves
whom you really count as sharing your religious beliefs and
values, and who (whether you approve or not) are different enough
that they ought not be called "Hindu." I close with a few brief
reflections meant to suggest how this thinking might proceed.
Perhaps the only non-Hindus are those who say, "I am not a Hindu;" this would be an exceedingly generous and inclusive judgment, and has merit to it. But it might also be too easy an answer to give, and it is probably not an answer that everyone would actually agree on. Perhaps too, on a descriptive level, not-Hindus are those who eat the wrong foods, marry the wrong people, purify themselves inadequately: this pragmatic definition might be of help too, but at some point you should still have to explain why certain foods are not Hindu, certain intermarriages not Hindu, certain lifestyles not pure enough, etc.
Pragmatically, then (and in a way that seems to be more true in India than here) you might ask: who is it that we do not welcome into our temples? One can think of a number of famous temples in India and Nepal, for instance, into which foreigners (people like me) are not permitted to enter. Perhaps this boundary decision about entrance and non-entrance determines clearly and in public who is an insider to the Hindu community and who is not. Hindu are those allowed into the Puri temple (or Pashupatinath or Srirangam, etc.), non-Hindus are those not allowed in. But then, a follow-up question would be: on what basis is someone barred from entering a Hindu temple? what judgment is being made about the person, or persons with that appearance, such that they are to be excluded?
Perhaps it is in fact Jews, Christians, Muslims who are the "non-Hindus" - in a way that would not be true of Buddhists and Sikhs and Jains, who nowadays are generally not excluded from the broader "Hindu family." If so, there may be something to the nature of the Semitic family of religions which is really different from the Indic/Hindu traditions, so that at least on this basis - "Those adhering to the Semitic faiths are not Hindus" - that a determination of "Hindu" and "non-Hindu" can be made. One might of course ask about the Chinese and Japanese, or Africans, and ponder whether any or all of these people with their religions and cultures fit better under "Hindu" or "non-Hindu."
Finally, as you know, there is a new category of Hindus flourishing here in the UK and elsewhere in the West, that is, non-Indians who call themselves Hindus and claim to live Hindu lives. Even 100 years ago, of course, Westerners were joining groups such as the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society, but now the impact seems much greater. While my impression is that these new devotees - members of ISKCON for instance - are welcomed in the Hindu community, I wonder if you who have been born Indian and call yourselves Hindu have yet meditated seriously enough on the phenomenon of "non-Indian Hindus" and what this entails. It could be that as Hinduism, even of a relatively traditional sort, begins to flourish even more widely outside of India, many of the traditional cultural aspects of Hinduism will no longer suffice to define what "being a Hindu" looks like; and if so, answers to the question, "who's a Hindu?" will matter all the more, ideas will count, learning will matter.
Who's a Hindu? Who will be asking that question in fifty years, and who will be in a position to answer it? It's up to you.
(Summary of the lecture given at London under the IK Foundation on 15-05-2002)