A Follow-Up Note on "The Hindu Case Against Hinduism"
Reposting from X, in response to some thoughtful comments I’ve received on the inaugural essay:
One question/criticism I have received in response to this essay is that by advocating that we dispense with the term "Hinduism" altogether, I am supporting sectarianism. On the contrary, it is my contention that the perpetuation of "Hinduism" (and the conceptual architecture it implies) actually serves to preserve sectarianism behind the false facade of religious unity. This is an argument that many on the Hindu right recoil from because they interpret the denial of a religious unity as an attack on the historicity of Hindu civilization. This is not totally unjustified, as this is exactly the line of argument followed by the secular left in India, who maliciously contort the emergence of "Hinduism" during the colonial period as an "invention" to diminish contemporary claims of Hindu political agency.
As usual, the truth is in the middle. The variegated landscape of Hindu spiritual tradition is united via a shared philosophical high culture and a symbolic language of myth and ritual that is embedded in India's "sacred geography". But this does not equate to a "religious" unity in the way that it is commonly understood, i.e., a congregational unity formed on the basis of a shared creed of beliefs. The emergence of "Hinduism" in the late 18th century was a reflection of how the British understood this spiritual tradition as outside observers, not a product of Hindu self-understanding. However, as Enlightenment ideas become increasingly hegemonic among the English-educated middle class in the colonial period, Hindus themselves adopted this framework, which increasingly became essential to how they saw their own spiritual inheritance.
It was at this crossroads that we see the emergence of reformists (e.g., Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj) and orthodox movements (Calcutta Dharma Sabha etl. al.). The resulting dialectic was resolved in favor of the orthodox movements in the 1920s, who-- contra the reformists who sought to fundamentally restructure Hindu religion and society-- argued that Hindusim was an "organic whole" and fundamental reform was misguided as it risked alienating groups from the Hindu fold. My argument is that the ecumenicalism of modern Hinduism (I refer to it as "inclusivism") is a restatement of the orthodox viewpoint. While it may have had its utility during the political tumult of the colonial era, I think inclusivism is obsolete and should be rejected. On the one hand, Hindus want to project unity as a "world religion" and enjoy the benefits and advantages that come with it, e.g., political strength, the ability to exercise control over public representation, and knowledge production through institutional heft. On the other hand, Hindus want to preserve the totality of Hindu tradition and insist that all paths are equally valid.
These two impulses are fundamentally at odds, and much of the frustration we see in contemporary Hindu revivalism stems from a failure to understand that you can't have both. Dispensing with the notion of "Hinduism" is the first step to rejecting this framework which no longer serves us. If the goal is to modernize dharmic thought and practice (and I acknowledge that there are traditionalists who would scoff at this goal), then Hindu tradition as we know it has to fundamentally transform and, frankly, become more like a "religion". Regardless of whether one agrees with this from a normative standpoint the fact is that it is already happening in India as Hindu tradition nationalizes via economic growth, access to mass media, and internal migration, a cumulative process of modernization which also entails the increasing salience of western modes of thought and conceptual frameworks. Much of what the secular left bemoans as "Hindutva" is simply the downstream political effect of the gradual but inevitable shift in Indian culture and society. But those of us in the diaspora who are increasingly detached from India are not subject to those same forces and need to chart our course independently. This is the guiding principle of Frontier Dharma.
Reading your comments, two reactions to mind (as conveyed first below) followed by a response.
1. If idea of unity is seen as a challenge within Hinduism and possibly stunting its full expression, such a lack of unity can be seen among other religions too (In terms of visible, and a few times, violent, among the various denominations within such religions). May I add - disputes are present even among Physicists too 😂. Presence of disputes is a natural outcome within any domain but the key question is not whether disputes happen but how they are resolved. And resolution is based on a common framework of priori truths (say, those contained within the Vedas), then we should be fine with disputes too - presence of disputes does not negate unity. To add - physical congregation of the kind we see at the Ram temple or the Kumbh Mela across all denominations within Hinduism also may be seen as an expression of congregational unity - can it not?
2. How do we understand the term "inclusivity"? The Hindu idea of inclusivity (unlike other religions) is a kind of inclusivity that is aligned to Truth. That is why it is always common in any commentary written to Hindu Gurus to include lines from Bible, Quran, Lao Tze, Milepa and even from modern Science. If we reflect on Advaitic inclusivism, it gives space to Vishishtha, Dwaita and other expressions except placing them in the form of a hierarchy of thought - and in the realm of thought, nothing is excluded, as it should be.
The problem statement is therefore absence of consensus on definition of Hinduism - and this remains a gap. Open any webpage that attempts to define Hinduism and the differences in definition of basics of Hinduism are visible to all. Instead of vacillating between a binary of "Hinduism exists" (but keep the definition ambiguous or keep it a free for all) or "Hinduism does not exist", given the way the world is organized, it may be sensible to attempt to work out a common definition and work to get consensus among all Hindus rather than throw baby out of the bathwater.
Let me put forth a definition (not as a scholar but as a practitioner) as a starting point for further deliberation - it is important to use our own terminology instead of translating everything. I believe this definition can be acceptable to all denominations within Hinduism too as a starting point (apologies for poor language which is owing to my own knowledge limitations):
1. Brahma Chaitanyam is the only Truth - nothing else exists. Both masculine (representing Sat and Chit) and feminine (representing Ananda) are comprised within this Truth.
2. Universe or Vishwa is an expression of Brahma Chaitanyam. Diversity comes from interplay of Triguna and Pancha Bhuta present within Mula Prakriti (primordial raw material) projected by Brahma Chaitanya
3. Every object, visible or invisible, living or non-living, is imbued with Brahma Chaitanyam.
4. Universe runs on principle of Dharma, Karma and Devata Vyavastha. Presence of Avidya keeps beings from living life connected to their own Brahma Chaitanya.
5. Yoga provides the way to remain connected with Brahma Chaitanyam while engaging with the world of experiences.
I am sure every Hindu denomination will not have a problem to align with the above. Additionally, each denomination may have sub-points that take the above and add their own nuance/ speciality/ approach. Unity in Diversity....
The above definition will be both a uniting aspect of all strands of Hinduism but equally, will distinguish Hinduism from other religions (or domains) quite clearly. Time has come (and probably gone) to work towards arriving at a common consensus definition and once this is flashed in all web-pages, books, etc and drilled into from childhood, the 300-year old problems that you have indicated will hopefully get set aside.