Many Indians intellectuals who don’t believe in supernatural gods or powers fail to separate their non-belief from the ‘Hindu’ identity. The desire to belong to a dominant cultural group is so strong in us that these so-called ‘Hindu Atheists’ invent the most convoluted justifications for their acceptance of the Hindu label. But does it really make sense to call oneself a Hindu Atheist? What does one truly mean by the word Hindu in this context? The object of this article is to get rationalists and atheists from India who identify themselves as ‘Culturally Hindu’ to question this label with which they are associating themselves.
To make my position clear at the outset, I will state my fundamental claim below.
Fundamental Claim
Hinduism is a meaningless religious label. It is not an ancient philosophy that originated in India. In fact, the word Hindu is not even an Indian word. It is a superficial group identity that was concocted relatively late in the history of India. Rather than being the unified philosophy or way of thought that it masquerades to be, Hinduism is a semantic impediment to the natural evolution of cultural knowledge in India.
Introduction
“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
Georgia Harkness
Religions have always benefited when the facts are ambiguous. One such religion-driven ambiguity is in the definition of the notion of religion itself. This is the first place to start any such discussion on religion.
From a scientific point of view, we can define religion as a sub-group within a culture, possessing certain specific traits. The most fundamental of these traits is the strong group identity that religion strives to instill in its followers. In this sense, religion can be observed as a set of memes. The evolution of a religion can be studied through the memetic evolution of individual religious ideas, including the central meme that holds the religion together- the group label. The most successful religions are those that have managed to extend the label of the religion over the entire cultural spectrum of a population. The religions that manage to do this have achieved a stranglehold over the cultural evolution of that group of people. This is the most powerful strategy that religious memes have at their disposal. The way a culture gets out from under the burden of repressive religious labels is by denying religious memes their hunger for co-opting the knowledge attained by rational discourse. That is, religion is designated a limited status, separate from factual aspects of the culture in which it exists. In most Western countries, the role of religion has been mostly designated to non-rational affairs. This removal of the repressive influence of religion from fact-based aspects of human culture has been the greatest achievement of reason. Unfortunately, In India the ‘Hindu’ meme has successfully prevented many rationalists from differentiating between the religious memes of the group label ‘Hinduism’ and the rest of Indian culture.
In my article Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life, I identify three qualities possessed by religions that define them: group identity, authoritarian organization, and the tendency to increase the ability for belief in conflicting ideas (followed by cherry-picking). In that article, I demonstrated how Hinduism is similar to Islam and Christianity in these respects- not surprising since Islam and Christianity provided the conditions for the development of institutionalized Hinduism. In the same article, I also point to how Hinduism is a religion in the same sense that all of Greek philosophy and mythology is one self-contained religion. That is to say that this idea of Hinduism is not really a religion. It is simply the cultural history of a group of people, Indians. Considering a rational standardized view of what does and what does not comprise a religion, there are two distinct faces that wear the mask of ‘Hinduism’. One is religious, and the other is a lie. I intend on exposing the lie.
In this article we will see how what we label today as Hinduism was developed as a reaction to the threat of cultural irrelevance posed first by Islam and later by Christianity, and how this label has been packaged as a cultural competitor to these two ’super-religions’. Further, we will see how this meaningless and concocted label ‘Hindu’ may have served India well over the past centuries by keeping dangerous ideologies at bay, but may well have outlived its useful phase. Finally, we will see why it is necessary for us Indian rationalists to take a step back and evaluate the usefulness of the term ‘Hindu’ itself.
- Note: I do not intend on discussing any actual theology here. If that is your area of interest, there are perhaps other venues more suitable for you. This article is concerned with the cultural and sociobiological impulses behind the development and evolution of the label ‘Hinduism’. It is written as a work of critical examination of certain specific ideas from an academic perspective. No malice is directed towards any particular group of people. Similarly, commenters are encouraged to treat ideas with irreverent skepticism and people with respect and kindness.
The Usurpation of a National Identity by a Meaningless Label.
India has seen numerous belief systems come and go. The nature of cultural evolution in a relatively ‘free-society’ (the definition of this phrase can be debated) is that ideas challenge each other and compete for belief space when they are in natural conflict. The result is a progressive and self-correcting cultural framework within which civil society flourishes. Ancient India was no stranger to this cultural mechanism of innovation, introspection, elimination and growth. Thousands of ideologies, philosophies and schools of thought have been built up and torn down over the centuries. All of this co-existed with the thousands of deeply-rooted superstitions and mindless rituals that pervaded the land.
Despite this diversity of opinion and the competition for cultural success between different belief systems within India, the people who inhabited the sub-continent had much in common with each other. This is only natural. Many of the local cultures shared common ancestry. Even iron-age people traveled a bit, and eventually there was a continuous distribution of cultural traditions throughout India. The natural barriers that cut off the subcontinent from its neighbors also helped the societies that evolved in India to develop a distinct cultural flavor. Any visitor to the land would have been struck by how different the set of beliefs were from their own. This is exactly what happened when the travelers from the West and from the East laid their weary eyes on the people and cultures of ancient India. These visitors needed a word to describe the people who lived in this part of the world- to set them apart from themselves, and consequently from everyone else. The many words they came up with were lost in memetic dead-ends. Until one stuck.
The origins of the word ‘Hindu’ lie in the Persian word for the river Indus. The people who lived east of the Indus river (Sindu in Sanskrit) were called Hindus by the Persians. This is also similar to the Arabic term for Indians. Some sources credit Alexander, the Greek invader, as the source of the word Hindu, but there is little evidence for this claim. The term ‘Hindu’ entered India with the arrival of the Mughals. It was not in common use within the subcontinent until the 14th century, long after many of the major texts of what is known today as Hinduism were composed. Islam, the religion of the Mughal invaders, poised itself as a sufficiently separate belief-system from the collective Paganism that the Mughals perceived in the local population. To the Muslims, all the local beliefs and practices of the inhabitants of the subcontinent comprised a primitive out-group. To the Indians, Islam was an alien ideology which was capable of replacing all local knowledge and culture with it’s own self-contained narrative. Their response was the formation of a reactionary element against Islam from within the Indian community (this happened by cultural evolution over many generations, as well as by concerted efforts of individuals and groups). This part-organic, part-organized movement adopted the label conferred on it by this enemy. Hinduism was born.
In the more recent past the Christian colonialists continued to use the label ‘Hindu’ to denote the people of India. Often, they used this label on any Indian who was not White. The Hindu revival movement was born in the 19th century, as a nationalistic response to British rule. This is the real origin of the modern phenomenon that we call Hinduism. Tapio Tamminen writes
“Hindu revivalists argued that the national identity could be recovered only by seeking the fundamental religious and cultural truths again. They idealized the past, and demanded a return to the older and purer forms of Hindu culture that had degenerated under foreign rule….
According to many leading revivalists, Hindu society had degenerated, because Hindus no longer followed ‘dharma’. They claimed that India could not regenerate itself unless dharma was properly observed. For example Aurobindo Ghose emphasized that ‘all great awakenings in India, all her periods of mightiest and most varied vigour have drawn their vitality from the fountainhead of some deep religious awakening’ (Purani 1964: 81). Aurobindo Ghose and other revivalists shared the view that a good society can exist only when it is based on the correct principles of dharma.
The ‘Dharma-karma’ concept was adjusted for political purposes mainly by three persons: Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950) and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920). They all legitimated their religious and political ideas by the ‘Bhagavad Gita’. According to Aurobindo Ghose, the nation was a divine expression of God. That is why he could emphasize that ‘nationalism is a religion that has come from God’. (Andersen and Damle 1987: 13-16).
According to Girilal Jain (1994: 45), there are three notable points in Swami Vivekananda’s ‘religion of patriotism’: firstly his identification of Mother India with the supreme God, secondly his attempt to reintroduce the Kshatriya element in the Hindu psyche, and thirdly his conviction that India was destined to be a teacher of the human race in the spiritual reality.”
Thus the entire early history of India had become synonymous with a religious ideology by the time India gained independence from Britain.
This etymology of the word ‘Hindu’ is the currently accepted version among scholars, but there have been attempts to present a more ancient indigenous origin for the term. Many such attempts have involved verses alleged to be Vedic that refer to Indians as Hindu, but none of these verses have been verified. These attempts show the extent to which people will go to defend a meaningless label, even to the point of manufacturing evidence to cover up the irrelevance of that label.
The Biology of Groups:
The biological reasons that drove the evolution of the label Hinduism can be studied using sociobiology. Briefly, the field of sociobiology is concerned with how human behavior (of individuals) evolved due to environmental pressures over the ages. In the case of group identity, the primary environmental pressure is the group- the society of humans. As people developed complex cultures, cultural group labels came to replace older forms of group identity such as kinship and tribe identity. In this context, group labels become an important determinant in the evolution of human behavior. This behavior is shaped by the interaction between primitive human instincts and the evolving language of identity.
Robin Allott writes:
“National, international, local and social history is largely the record of the consequences of groupism, a biologically necessary (no doubt) product of the evolution of the species. If groups are formed, group interests are bound to diverge and can result in Crusades, concentration camps, football hooliganism, Waco, city riots - or even sociology v evolutionary psychology. Groupism is a central aspect of human evolutionary psychology. Nations, societies, or states are ingroups on the largest scale, formed of multiple subsidiary ingroups and regarding other nations, societies or states as outgroups. Consideration of smaller groups can throw light on the cohesion of the largest groups. The obverse of the unity of the group is the potential for intergroup conflict. Social identity plays an important role in ingroup-outgroup relations, the distribution of resources, self-categorization, and expectations for behavior. It is an automatic redefinition of “self” in terms of shared group membership.”
This tendency for group identity is the main reason why Hinduism came to be accepted as an all inclusive tradition in India. I have written about this here:
“The Hindu identity is in part a reaction to the collective out-group status assigned to the practices that were different from Islam and Christianity.”
The sociobiological perspective is an objective scientific way of studying the evolution of complex cultural and behavioral trends, although its reach may be limited. In the case in question, this perspective offers unique insight into the development and perpetuation of the ‘Hindu’ label.
The Benefits of the Label:
The ‘Hindu’ identity has had a strong positive influence on Indian culture in one major respect. It has kept Islam and Christianity from spreading more than they already have on the subcontinent. An analysis of other cultures with animistic beliefs that were later invaded by Islamic or Christian cultures demonstrates how easily the ’super-religions’ were established in these new pastures. The development of the ‘Hindu’ label has 
preserved, at least in part, many of the ancient philosophical treatises and art relics of our great culture. The so-called ‘Pagan’ cultures of Europe, Africa, South America and the Middle East were often decimated by Christianity and Islam.
However, the benefits conferred to Indian culture by adopting the label ‘Hinduism’ faded away with the end of British rule and the development of a secular constitution.
Think of a sapling that is planted in the ground. A tough wire mesh placed surrounding the young plant can protect it from grazing animals and bad weather. After the sapling grows into a young tree with a hardy constitution, it does not need the wire anymore. The same wire mesh can now choke the tree’s growth and be its downfall. Hinduism is the wire mesh that is closing in around our growing Indian culture. The mesh is not necessary anymore for support and protection and is only a danger to the health of the tree. But the steel wire is embedded deep in the soft growing wood and needs to be cut out with care and determination.
The Two Faces of Hinduism:
From the very beginning Hinduism has maintained two completely different portfolios. On the one hand, it is an organized religion, like Islam and Christianity (again, I have explained why here ). On the other, the label of Hinduism deceptively and falsely encompasses all of Indian culture, except for the beliefs and practices of distinct major religions (and even among these, Buddhism and Jainism are considered branches of Hinduism by some). On one hand, ancient philosophical schools such as the atheistic Carvaka school which predates the label ‘Hindu’ by centuries, are falsely appropriated by Hinduism. On the other, you have Hindus insisting that there are certain core beliefs in Hinduism, beliefs that no atheist would associate with. The two faces of Hinduism are a reflection of the fact that the notion of Hinduism is a cobbled together nationalistic ideology that incorporates aspects of older religious traditions as well as non-religious cultural elements within it.
It is the interplay between these two-faces of Hinduism that is responsible for much of India’s troubles. There is a semantic deception played by Hinduism that maintains a seemingly cohesive and self-contained image, one that disingenuously encompasses the two faces of the label ‘Hindu’. This is a lie that is perpetuated to dissuade criticism and foster ignorance. It is this lie that we must expose if we wish to restore rational discourse to Indian thought. I propose a conscious restricting of the label ‘Hindu’ to only those aspects of Indian culture that are actually religious in nature. The rest must be embraced by rationalists as part of greater Indian culture.
Hinduism the Religion:
Dr. Prabhakar Kamath is writing a series of articles here on Nirmukta about the history of Hinduism. He begins with the ancient religion of Brahmanism and traces the evolution of the religious power structure over the centuries. His article Obsessive Compulsive Religion contains a brief description of part of the power struggle between ancient religious memes in India (edited here):
“The doctrine of the Gunas and Karma were literally the two gods of Brahmanism…. Over the next thousand years, Brahmanism became decadent due to its obsession with corrupted Yajnas known as Kamya Karma. The Dharma, which had been invented to bring stability to the ancient society itself, became the problem…Decadence of Brahmanism created tremendous turmoil in the society. A large section of Brahmanic society abandoned it and started various rationalist Dharmas such as Buddhism and Lokayata. During this time, Upanishadic rationalists, with the intent of overthrowing decadent Brahmanism, declared both the Gunas and Karma as evil, which one should transcend (BG: 2:45) or even slay (BG: 3:41, 43). They created a Super Man (Purushotthama, Brahman) to counter the force of the Gunas. They created a Super Weapon (Buddhiyoga, Yoga of Reason) to break the shackles of Karma. They said one could conquer these evil doctrines by taking refuge in Brahman, and by using Buddhiyoga as a weapon (BG: 2:39-53; 15:1-5). Brahmanism launched a counterrevolution and did everything within their powers to counter the Upanishadic revolution. They neutralized Brahman and Buddhiyoga by adding pro-Brahmanism shlokas in the Upanishads as well as the Bhagavad Gita. This necessitated creation of an even greater force to combat Brahmanism. This is how the real god of Hindus, Parameshwara, was invented. Parameshwara, the Great Lord, of the Bhagavathas, took the place of Brahman, and Bhakthiyoga became the weapon against the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.”
Dr Kamath places these events in context and provides more detail in his later articles (1,2). His focus in these articles is on the dominant religion of ancient India, Brahmanism. According to Dr. Kamath, it is the core principles of Brahmanism that evolved into the grander ideology of Hinduism. He says of Hinduism:
“…its practices are rooted in the antiquated belief system of Brahmanism, the prevalent religion of India three thousand years ago”
If you are interested in learning about the origin and evolutionary history of what is today considered the religion of Hinduism, Dr. Kamath’s articles are an excellent resource.
The events involving the evolution of Brahmanism occurred BEFORE modern Hinduism was born. Today, it is impossible to separate ancient Indian religious sects from what is labeled as Hinduism. All sects, including those which predate the ‘Hindu’ label by thousands of years, are brought under the umbrella of ‘Hinduism’. As discussed above, the impetus behind this amalgam was the relative in-group status that these local beliefs systems had in relation to Islam and Christianity. This tendency continues today, with Hindus at pains to distinguish Hinduism from the Semitic faiths. Meera Nanda in her book ‘The God Market’ writes about the ‘theology of hatred’ that factions of the Hindutva movement have constructed to target Islam and Christianity. She writes:
” To convert the diffused cultural majoritarianism of Hindus into a unified political majoritarianism which openly reduced non-Hindus to the status of second-class citizens has been the fond dream of the Hindu right. Towards that end, there are voices within the Hindutva camp that are openly fermenting hatred of Islam and Christianity”
In putting religion in it’s place, we can yet concede that the co-opting of all the ancient Indian religious sects under the banner ‘Hindu’ is ‘acceptable. After all, this is how religions evolve. However, since the meme ‘Hinduism’ is defined only in relation to the Semitic faiths, we rationalists must extricate ourselves from under this label. This is the only way we can objectively observe the inevitable clash of religious ideologies while being active participants in mitigating the harm done by them.
The Looting of Indian Philosophy (and art, science and everything else):
The successful marketing of Indian philosophy as ‘Hindu Philosophy’ is one of the most disgraceful accomplishments of modern Hinduism. In recent years the history of Indian philosophy has almost always been presented through the lens of Hinduism, to the extent that wikipedia lists the schools of Indian philosophy as ‘Hindu Philosophy‘. Interestingly, wikipedia also has a page on Indian philosophy, where it distinguishes between orthodox and non-orthodox schools.
It does not seem to matter that these schools labeled as ‘Hindu philosophy’ comprise the entire spectrum of the intellectual history of ancient India. They include the ideas of fervent atheists who were staunchly against superstition. Many of these atheists would have undoubtedly been aghast at the thought of being represented under the same banner as the true believers. At a time when their world was often limited to the cultures of ancient India, they stood as far apart as they could from the religious beliefs around them. It is certainly logical that were these scholars alive today they would reject the oppressive and meaningless label of Hinduism. Many of them were diametrically opposed to the idea of organized religion. Yet, their ideas are collectively delegated to the status of ‘religion’, only due to effective propaganda by those who subscribe to the ‘Hindu’ label. This idea that Indian philosophy is Hindu philosophy has become so entrenched in the modern language that the very beginning of naturalistic thought in India is attributed to Hinduism!
However, rejecting the idea that the Nastika schools are part of Hinduism is simple enough. After all, these schools reject the authority of the Vedas. Moreover, Buddhism and Jainism are sufficiently separate out-groups and so it is easy for Hindus to reject them as lying outside the ‘Hindu’ label. What about the Astika schools? Three of the six Astika schools do not deal with traditional religious questions at all.
From wikipedia:
Nyaya, the school of logic
Vaisheshika, the atomist school
Samkhya, the enumeration school
The truth is that the Vedas, like all philosophical works, were originally not created as part of one dogmatic religious group identity. They were developed by many people as part of the general cultural and philosophical thought at a time in history when religion was indistinguishable from the greater culture. The Vedic schools of thought have been wholly co-opted into the ‘Hindu’ label although they predate the label by thousands of years along with the Nastika schools and various other philosophical aspects of Indian culture.
In modern times, the term ‘Hindu’ has gained notoriety for stamping itself on any Indian tradition or accomplishment that has been influenced by
Indian philosophy. Famous Indian rationalists have adopted the label ‘Hindu’, for example Amartya Sen and Periyar. Even some European thinkers have adopted the ‘Hindu Atheist’ label to express their affinity for Indian philosophy, without giving thought to the legitimacy of the label they are endorsing.
India today is (unfairly) not generally hailed as a country with a magnificent philosophical tradition. If you bring up ancient atheistic philosophy, most people think of Greek philosophy. In fact, few atheists are aware that the early Indian materialists almost certainly predated the Greek materialist philosophers by a century or two (India’s enlightenment period was ahead of Greece’s golden age of philosophy). Western philosophical traditions have consistently ignored Indian philosophy. Considering the present day domination by the West in the field of philosophy, it is understandable that most people are unaware of India’s early contributions in the area. Most Westerners are accustomed to thinking of Indian philosophy as Hindu philosophy. This allows them to continue to present their biased Eurocentric timeline for a global history of philosophy, relegating the Indian achievements in this department to religion and not to Indian philosophy itself.
Hindus are content in having India’s philosophical tradition being labeled internationally as ‘Hindu Philosophy’. This is an outrage that we rationalists must be up-in-arms about. Other such major aspects of Indian culture that have been stolen by the Hindu label include ‘The Hindu Calendar‘, which is a takeover of a product of ancient Indian astronomy that has been modified multiple times over many different historic periods, and ‘Hindu Mathematics’, which appropriates a field of ancient Indian knowledge that is responsible for giving the world the zero. Indian mathematics also gave the world what are mistakenly referred to as ‘Arabic Numerals’. Today, instead of thinking of these achievements as the results of free expression and a spirit of exploration that prevailed in ancient India, we are taught to repeat the Hindu lies.
What’s wrong with the ‘Hindu’ label?
The most general criticism of the ‘Hindu’ label applies to all religions. It is a critique of the nature of religious belief itself. We will forgo this discussion here and instead focus only on those aspects of the ‘Hindu’ label that are harmful to the culture and people of India.
The Hindu label provides cover to all those things that we rationalists are concerned with. It would take many pages to simply list all the regressive aspects of Indian culture for which the ‘Hindu’ label provides protection against criticism. The lack of criticism that results from this protection allows malignant beliefs to fester and erode Indian culture from within.
It is a commonly known fact that India is a land of superstition. The tackling of these superstitions is our number one agenda here on Nirmukta. 
Despite the long rationalist philosophical tradition in India, these superstitions continue to persist, and even flourish. New superstitions are invented every day and old ones rehashed in new contexts. A well-known social ill that plagues the country is the religious caste system. Primitive medical systems such as Ayurveda and Siddha are guarded from scientific analysis, and mass delusions such as astrology and numerology pervade every aspect of Indian culture. In effect, Indian culture is heavily polluted by these superstitious beliefs and practices. It continues to harbor these leeches that drain away humanity’s brightest achievements in reason, thanks to the protection provided to these superstitions by the meaningless group-identity of ‘Hinduism’.
Another important criticism of the ‘Hindu’ label is the propensity of this label to selectively reject ideas that it perceives as foreign, often when the foreign idea may actually be beneficial to the people. All religions are hypocritical in this regard. A religious label will tend to accept a foreign idea if it benefits from it. If, however, the idea is harmful to the religious label, it will be rejected as alien even if it benefits the culture and people that the religion preys upon. This is the duplicitous behavior that allows religious memes to survive in the age of reason. In the context of Hinduism, we see this behavior when it comes to the advances of science. Hinduism’s war on science is more nuanced than that of the Semitic religions. It involves strategies that attempt to co-opt science into the religious texts, while disregarding scientific implications regarding the supernatural beliefs that form the core of its belief structure. Meera Nanda writes:
“The presumed scientificity of Hinduism is a source of much pride for modern Hindus as it sets their faith apart from that of the religions of the book which appear more dogmatic.”
Of course, those who make such claims about the Hindu texts have no clue as to what science actually is. They mistake the knowledge gained from the scientific method as being science itself, and completely misrepresent the essence of this knowledge in order to co-opt it into their brand of mysticism.
On a national level, the most dangerous aspect of the ‘Hindu’ label is the politicization and commercialization of religion. This subject is covered in depth in Meera Nanda’s latest book ‘The God Market’. Dr. Nanda devotes an entire chapter to what she calls the ‘State-Temple-Corporate Complex’. She writes:
“What may seem like a paradox, the resurgence of popular Hindusim is happening not against the grain of Indian secularism, but because of it. The Indian brand of secularism has allowed the state to maintain an intimate and nurturing relationship with the majority religion. As the neo-liberal state has entered into a partnership with the private sector, a cozy triangular relationship has emerged between the state, the corporate sector, and the Hindu establishment.”
Dr. Nanda goes on to provide details in specific areas such as education and tourism where this relationship between religion, government and private enterprise has grown in recent years. This unwelcome influence of the ‘Hindu’ label must invoke strong reactions in all rational people. The soft brand of Indian secularism that Meera Nanda talks about must stop providing its tacit approval of the ‘Hindu’ label. This is the challenge that we have ahead of us.
The Irony of Hindu Rationalism
A common defense heard from apologists of Hinduism is that you can be an atheist/rationalist and yet culturally and philosophically be Hindu. All Hindus use this argument to deflect criticism of Hinduism coming from those rationalists who do not subscribe to the label. In fact, this sort of lumping together of atheism, reason and religion under the banner of ‘Hinduism’ has prompted many Hindus to attack any criticism of Hinduism as Christian or Islamic, without understanding the objective scientific perspective that lies outside of their myopic little world-view.
The ‘Hinduism-is-not-just-a-religion’ argument is also a common defense used by ‘Hindu’ intellectuals and even ‘Hindu atheists’. It is this self-identification of Indian intellectuals with a meaningless religious label that inspires these folk to ignore or even defend the barbarism and superstition that exists within Indian culture. The most depressing thing for a rationalist is to live in a society where there is little cultural significance associated with her/his core beliefs- where everything of social value is tied to a repressive ideological label. It is even more depressing to see a rationalist actively choose to be represented by that label, simply because mimicking the sheep offers some temporary respite from the tribulations of living in such a culture.
Why do we see so many atheists and rationalists subscribing to the ‘Hindu’ label? The main reason is that the marketing of the label has been so complete that it often does not strike most folk to question the reach of the label. However, there may be other reasons. For one, many atheists and rationalists in India may feel an in-group affinity with the other proponents of the ‘Hindu’ label (as opposed to competing religious identities), even if these other proponents are utilizing the label for exactly the opposite purpose from the one that the rationalists endorse. Some Indian thinkers refer to themselves as Hindus because they have not really given much thought to the label. Others have given it thought and have decided that the personal benefits of identifying with the ‘Hindu’ label outweigh the satisfaction of opposing irrational ideologies of the kind perpetuated by religious memes. Most however, emerge into reason from their religious stupor and choose not to cut the umbilical cord that ties them with their families and friends. They accept the deceptive narrative Hinduism has pushed on them and think not to differentiate between such a label and the larger cultural context that enriches India.
An Alternative Narrative
An alternative cultural identity is essential if we are to move away from the religious labels that have dictated so much of Indian culture in recent years.
If we create awareness of the fact that all those ancient atheistic/rationalist philosophers that modern Hindus gather under their banner would probably have shuddered at the thought of sharing stage with those who form the core of the Hindu religion (or any religion for that matter), that few of them had probably even heard the word Hindu, that without the external pressure of Islam and Christianity Hindu revivalism would not have essentially invented a religion from the multiple sects, cultures, beliefs and philosophies that were found in India, then perhaps we can persuade some of the rational elements who have refrained from questioning the label ‘Hindu’ to start doing so. We can show how this sort of religious label restricts the natural process by which bad ideas are eliminated in culture- through discussion and social damnation. More importantly, we can provide rational ’Hindus’ with an alternative narrative that is more real, in place of the meaningless in-group label by which they identify themselves.
The alternative to religion is reason. At first glance it is obvious that this rational alternative is more representative of the great cultural traditions and philosophical works of India than a meaningless label. Indian rationalists must reject such silly memes as ‘Western medicine’ and ‘Western science’ and embrace Nehru’s vision of a country that embodies the spirit of inquiry. We must focus our ire on such primitive means of cultural domination as religious identities and strive to make India relevant in the international science community. After all, even those rationalists who have not shrugged off the ‘Hindu’ label will agree that the future of our country depends on the scientific education of its people. We must not hesitate to point out how the label of ‘Hinduism’ is a barrier to the advancement of India in the modern world.
We can still appreciate and gain immense pleasure from the practices and philosophies that are part of India’s glorious past. These ideas may lie today within the grasp of institutionalized Hinduism, but we cannot allow this tyrannical label to deny us our heritage. Appreciation of Indian art and culture is our right just as much as it is to those who label themselves ‘Hindus’. The rational inclusion of these aspects of our history into our lives can be a fulfilling experience. The fact that we reject the label ‘Hindu’ does not mean that we cannot participate in certain festivals and social rituals that are part of our culture. Ancient myths are fun from a cultural perspective. We can learn to enjoy them for what they are without assigning any factual significance to them. The art, architecture and culture inspired by the ancient Greek and Egyptian myths are just as powerful reminders of human achievement today as they were when those myths were believed as fact.
In abandoning the ‘Hindu’ label, we are keeping India from descending into a cultural black-hole. We are liberating Indian culture from the still sickness of ideology by embracing the freedom of thought that creates a dynamic and progressive society.
In a way, this is an issue of patriotism (of the rational and thoughtful kind). Indian culture is being hijacked by a label- an idea that is itself a reaction to Islam and Christianity. It is a label that keeps us from absorbing beneficial things from other cultures and ridding our culture of harmful ideas from within it. In essence, Hinduism retards healthy cultural growth. Hinduism is unpatriotic. This is the new paradigm that rationalists must endorse to break the spell of ‘Hinduism’ that is slowly choking India.
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Link:
Related posts:
- Reincarnation, Rebirth And Past-Life Regression Therapy In India: A Rationalist Critique
- Indian Rationalist Movement- The Challenges Ahead
- Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life?
- Swine Flu Campaign by the Indian Rationalist Organizations
- Review: The God Market- How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu, By Meera Nanda
- Am I a Hindu?
- Introduction to “The God Market: How Globalization is making India more Hindu”
- The Culture Vultures Unlimited
- The Atheism of Bhagat Singh
- Hindu Terrorists and BJP Double Speak
- The God Delusion in Action: My Indian travelogue.
- The Rise of Atheism: The 2010 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia.
- Annual “Best Scientific Outlook Award” Ceremony And Rationalist Program
The article is brilliantly written. Since you claim that the label ‘Hindu’ has outlived its utility, it should be equally possible in India to write critiques on Islam and christianity. I don’t see a lot of critical voices in the mainstream on that. So don’t you think that ’secular’ setup that you blame for being hand in glove with the hindutva guys are also responsible for stifling voices of reason that attempt to undercut the irrational abrahamic minority?
So would the rise of Hindutva be linked to our perverse ’secular’ culture that doesn’t attempt to separate state from religion, but attempts to find a inclusive workable balance of all religions?
That said, I’m all for shedding off ‘Hindu’ tag and return to our glorious tradition of ideological warfares. But is it practical in today’s world? Simply put, Do Islam and Christianity deserve public space for debate in India?
Hi Ajita,
Awesome article.
In the section “The Benefits of the Label”
I have to disagree with you.
There was no benifits of the label at anytime.
When Alexander the great was about to Invade India, It was the liberal (atheist) India which was able to prevent the invasion.
He was not able, because one of the reasons was that India was united under a liberal ideology.
But once the liberal idealogy was lost, then castism came into existence. We started to treat our own people badly.
So when invasions occured eventhough we were pariatlly united under the banner of hinduism India collasped, because the banner of Hinduism was itself responsible for lots of discontent and disunity.
Because we were treating our own people badly because of caste system.
I think the banner was like HIV infection, which crippled the immune system of India
On a completely unrelated note, am I the only one seeing the smiley on the bottom left corner of the browser?
You can find references to skeptics in almost all of the holy books. Hinduism is not unique in this. The very fact that Atheism, like you say, is being “tolerated” shows that it NEEDS to be tolerated. This question of toleration would not arise if Atheism was in fact part of Hinduism from the start.
Semantics apart, if Atheism is being tolerated today in India, it is not “because” of Hinduism, but “in spite of” it, coz if one really wants you can always find hostile verses towards non-believers, like the one I quoted. Attributing good behavior of humans to their religion, when in fact it has nothing to do with it, is a trademark of all religions and yet another example of why Hinduism falls under that label.
I have read the article and so I say it again. I am not bound by your thesis but only by my own study and analysis. Hindu is a word coined by others to describe the people of this subcontinent known for their abode beside Indus (Sindhu) and contiguous areas and then expanding from thereon. Various beliefs are interwoven - which of you would call Hinduism? Tree worship, Linga worship, Fire worship, Sun worship, etc. Advaita, dvaita, visishtadvaita, etc. Almost atheistic religions like Jainism and Buddhism, etc. In law even Jainists and Buddhists are treated as Hindus and in common parlance there is not much difference. As such Hinduism is truly a way of life encompassing various beliefs out of which atheist beliefs are also an important part. Summing up we can say it is a polytheistic way of life encompassing atheism too.
What if in Ramayana Jabali is depicted in a degrading manner? I only used the example to demonstrate that atheism was very much present even in high priestly/brahmanic circles even according to the scriptures. When the demon of intolerance was furiously roaming and Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Jainas and Buddhists were cutting each others’ throats etc. in those times all atheistic works were destroyed and so much so that we know about Charvakas only through Sarva Darsana Sangraha or some book of equivalent name. But as times went on tolerance also began to assert and firstly Hari Hara abedha theories circulated, the renmnant Buddhists and Jains virtually got assimilated in the wider Hindu society and atheism also has come to be tolerated. You would not find that rancour towards an atheist in Hindu society as one could find in Islamic society or even among Catholics.
If you have read the article, then you have simply let everything go over your head because you are raising points that are discredited by the article.
It is not a question of you being bound by my thesis, but a question of staying in context. If you are going to comment on my thesis, then it is logical to expect you to actually address my thesis. Failing that, you are simply not relevant.
But still, I am pretty sure you did not read. I am growing weary of such blind reactions, but I will take the time once more to demonstrate why you have not read the article.
Hindu is a word coined by others to describe the people of this subcontinent known for their abode beside Indus (Sindhu) and contiguous areas and then expanding from thereon
That was in the second section of the article. It is actually something that upholds my statements. Hinduism is a modern religion. If you had read the article you’d know that this is exactly what Im arguing.
As such Hinduism is truly a way of life encompassing various beliefs out of which atheist beliefs are also an important part. Summing up we can say it is a polytheistic way of life encompassing atheism too.
This is not Hinduism. This is the lie. READ THE ARTICLE. There are two things that go under the name Hinduism. One is a religion and the other is a lie. I am exposing the lie.
All the things you point to, to show that Hinduism is a religion, are actually INDIAN CULTURE, not part of your precious religion. The religious label you use is co-opting everything that belongs to India under the label. This is the entire thesis of the article. YOU DID NOT READ IT.
But as times went on tolerance also began to assert and firstly Hari Hara abedha theories circulated, the renmnant Buddhists and Jains virtually got assimilated in the wider Hindu society and atheism also has come to be tolerated.
This is the same lie that I have been arguing against. What could make you think that stating the very point that I dismissed using my arguments is valid? I HAVE ADDRESSED HOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS A LIE. GO BACK AND READ. The best religions try to co-opt everything under their name, and create a cognitive dissonance in their believers. So, in essence, Hindus can claim that Hinduism is about a belief in the supreme being, what ever that means, and in the same bredth dismiss criticism from atheists by saying that there are Hindu atheists. This is the religious deception, and Hindus are experts at this. Well, if you think you can play that trick on us in the modern age, you are mistaken. I am an Indian atheist. Hinduism is a religion full of the same type of dangerous religious nonsense that is contained in Islam or Christianity. IF YOU HAD READ THE ARTICLE YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN ALL THIS.
“You would not find that rancour towards an atheist in Hindu society as one could find in Islamic society or even among Catholics.”
Let me state one last time- you cannot simply take everything that belongs to culture at large and place it under the label of Hinduism. This is a lie. It is a trick designed to stiffle criticism by presenting a confusing and adaptive fromt. You are brainwashed into believing in one certain form of Hinduism, but there are contradictory beliefs that you hold on to without realizing them. No atheist will agree to what most Hindus, including Hindu authorities, declare as the core principles of Hinduism. You do not care about that. All you want is for Hinduism to be able to say atheism is a part of it. Well, no thank you. Hinduism is a religion and many of us moral atheists dispise such religious labels. We refuse to be co-opted into your ideology just so that you can use the fact that some people label themselves ‘Hindu Atheists’ to deflect criticism of some of the barbaric beliefs and practices within hinduism.
Again, read my article: http://nirmukta.com/2009/05/11/hinduism-religion-culture-or-way-of-life/
Then, READ THIS ARTICLE THAT YOU ARE COMMENTING ON, and re-evaluate your comments in light of my arguments. You cannot keep arguing a point that I have already dismissed and then state that you are not concerned with my thesis. If you are not concerned with my thesis, then you have no business commenting here.
Hinduism is more of a way of life than a religion. Actually in historical records you find no mention of Hinduism as such but Brahmanism, Vaishnavism, Saivism, etc. etc. It is after the cultural resurgence and especially the ‘Hindu’ resurgence preceding and following the liberation movements for independence that gradually the word Hinduism gained coinage, not any less due to the efforts of the imperialists themselves. Hinduism as a way of life includes atheism. If you read Valmiki Ramayana you find Jabali (Satyakama) a ‘naastik’ rishi being given much prominence and reverence even by Vasishta (Rajguru of Rama)and his secular advice to Rama (which is of course angrily shunned by Rama).
Then you are at fault to identify Karma theory only with what you call Hinduism. Karma and Punarjanma are strongly espoused by both Jainism and Buddhism, perhaps by these two more widely than the preceding ‘Hinduism’.
Im not sure if you read the article. You start with the assertion that Hinduism is more of a way of life than a religion. Well, my article just made some arguments that demonstrated that Hinduism is just as much a religion as the others. You have not addressed any of my arguments. In fact, I am quite sure you did not read the article, because if you had you’d have to be completely dense to post an argument that is clearly discredited by the article.
You do not define what constitutes a religion, and instead want us to accept your subjective interpretation of an undefined concept. If you had read the article, you would have known that.
Furthermore, you demonstrate the very quality that I associate with religions- high cognitive dissonance combined with confirmation bias, enabling you to cherry pick your way to the interpretation you desire- in other words, selectively choosing the evidence to tell the story you want. If you had read the article you’d have known this as well, and you wouldn’t be arguing that Hinduism is a way of life. Speaking of which, here
is my article on why Hinduism is NOT JUST A WAY OF LIFE. It is a dangerous, narcissistic and extremely virulent religion. Oh, and there was a link to that article as well in this post, so you would have known this also if you had actually read the article.
Spare me the history lesson. I am the editor of this site and, if you care to look, we have been publishing a series of articles on the religious history- the true religious history of India. In fact, please go ahead and read these here: http://nirmukta.com/category/writers/kps-kamath/
Start from the beginning, its going to be a long read. Oh wait, you don’t like to read very much, do you?
Citing atheists in scriptures does not necessarily mean they were/are accepted. In the example of Jabali, he was used more like a tool in Ayodhya Kanda to put atheists in their place. Apart from saying that there is nothing after death, Jabali’s advice to Rama (of not bothering to keep his word) has nothing to do with Atheism or secularism, and yet the verses are written in such a way that his argument stems from his atheism.
The 36 verses that follows is more like a sermon by Rama to all freethinkers than a reply. My favorite, allowing for translational mistakes, is this:
2-109-34: “Therefore he (athiest) is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the poeple. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist.”
Doesn’t sound Ram-like does it? Sounds more like powerful people talking to uneducated masses to counter possible rivals. And Vashista speaks in favor of Jabali only after Jabali himself turns into a half-believer by more or less admitting superiority of the Vedas.
Another rationalist here, I do appreciate that you too have experienced similar thoughts but I have a problem with you on many counts
“However, the benefits conferred to Indian culture by adopting the label ‘Hinduism’ faded away with the end of British rule and the development of a secular constitution.”
And you still call Islam and Christianity as super-religions?
If they are then the label is still worthy, if not then who cares.
I recognized this problem after debating with some Hindus hence I call myself as atheist and if asked more then atheist hindu, the last term to designate only as culture. It is common with even atheists from judaism as cultural jews.
We however do have an advantage, the undefined term “hinduism” is weak from the inside than from the outside. We can simply try to hijack it from the inside. We are at a huge advantage here. We can swim through its pores and criticize it from the inside and admonish from the outside.If they claim us then let us give them fire, let us see how long they can withstand our criticism.Anyway it is much easier to make people listen from the inside than from the outside
As far as Dr Nanda is concerned, did you know that she got a templeton prize?. Did you read her article against sam harris, she seems to be a hysterical character.
I however agree about temple-administration nexus problem but not in her way. Do you even realize as to why the temples have been taken over by the govt?. It was done in Nehru(atheist) era. Nehru probably was scared that the money from the temples(authority) could be used to create hindu rashtra especially after witnessing gandhi’s death. Do you know how that money could have been used if distributed among the dalits and women?.
But guess what? that is exactly what Jamat ud dawa does. Does is also what christians do all the time. What is stronger than a religion? A religion with money. Look at saudi, America(christian belt), vatican e.t.c.
I can understand what you are trying to convey but speak with sense. The problem is not with Identity of “Hindu”, The problem is with superstition and we must use every leverage they present to us, by not defining themselves they have set themselves a great problem and I plan to exploit it.
I do not think you have understood the points I have made in the essay.
“And you still call Islam and Christianity as super-religions?
If they are then the label is still worthy, if not then who cares.”
Is this some sort of game of non sequiturs?
“I recognized this problem after debating with some Hindus hence I call myself as atheist and if asked more then atheist hindu, the last term to designate only as culture. It is common with even atheists from judaism as cultural jews.”
I am well aware that there are those who do just that. That was the whole point of writing the article, to address this issue. Line 1.
We however do have an advantage, the undefined term “hinduism” is weak from the inside than from the outside.
Yes, I also addressed cognitive dissonance, that allows for cherry picking.
“We are at a huge advantage here. We can swim through its pores and criticize it from the inside and admonish from the outside.If they claim us then let us give them fire, let us see how long they can withstand our criticism.Anyway it is much easier to make people listen from the inside than from the outside”
Good for you. If you believe that you can do more for reason by using the label as a trojan horse, then go for it. No one is stopping you, and certainly not any rationalists.
However, this does not address any of the points I made about why the label has to go. You do little to understand the sciological perspective that I present, and are expecting me to abandon my evidence-based approach for your intuition that your way is best. This is not acceptable. What can be acceptable, at best, is that you do what you can from the inside and I will do my best to rid India of the cultural virus that is Hinduism.
“As far as Dr Nanda is concerned, did you know that she got a templeton prize?. Did you read her article against sam harris, she seems to be a hysterical character.
Do you have anything to say about any factual statements made by her? Or are you simply going to be that obvious about your intent? It is hard for you see this, but you are exactly the kind of person I was talking about when I said there are some who like the sense of a group identity, and you will defend that group identity even though you call yourself a rationalist.
“Do you even realize as to why the temples have been taken over by the govt?. It was done in Nehru(atheist) era. Nehru probably was scared that the money from the temples(authority) could be used to create hindu rashtra especially after witnessing gandhi’s death. Do you know how that money could have been used if distributed among the dalits and women?.”
Do you realize that made absolutely no sense?
To begin with, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the government should control temples. What I am arguing is that Hinduism is a disease that has ruined Indian society. So your entire tirade about government controlling the money is a straw-man argument.
Secondly, whether the money was used well or badly by the government, what makes you think that the religious con-men and the devotees who follow them blindly will be any better at spending it? This is simply a false assumption. You present a wide sweeping defense of religion because they, in all their might and power, do some good. To make your point you point to three countries- Saudi Arabia, the US and the Vatican.
Saudi Arabia and the Vatican are, historically, the most brutal regimes in the world. The Vatican till this day has the deaths and suffering of millions on its shoulders. The brutality and misogyny of the Saudi government is very famous. Just last week a British woman was arrested in Saudi Arabia for having the audacity to be raped. I would like to keep that sort of thing from happening in my country, thank you. The US among all industrialized countries has among that worst social care for its poor and suffering. Added to this is that fact that there is a strong religious element in American justifications of a century of war with the world.
It may be hard for you to think outside the box on this one, but trust me when i say that you are protecting your group, that’s all. If you step back and take a look you’ll see that Hinduism is a harmful dogma for India today. Even your justification that it is an advantage because Hinduism is ill defined is woefully ignorant in the context of understanding how religion works. All these points have been addressed in the article, with evidence. Leaving a religion undefined is not a weakness in this context- it is a strength for the religion, because it has people like you defending it, and by default, allowing for the existence of the ‘Hindu’ label under which all those superstitions that you claim to fight are actually being protected as they destroy India from within.
But again, just the fact that you are here arguing me is evidence that you are denfending the label. After all, whether the label survives or not, you are only concerned with defeating superstition, right? So why would the demise of the protective label of religion affect you? are you saying that the existence if the label is actually doing more good for the end of superstition than if it was not there? Try to understand yourself. You are simply defending the label by which you associate yourself.
The role I and other like myself like to play in shaping the future of India is one that creates alternatives to religion. It is to build a culture of reason. I’ll do my bit. Without religion, we will need alternatives. That is what the last part of the article is about. Or did you not get to that part?
“by not defining themselves they have set themselves a great problem and I plan to exploit it.”
In this sentence you make it clear that you are completely underestimating the capacity of religion to be viral. You are not exploiting the religion; IT is exploiting YOU, on order to perpetuate itself. The language of deception in being ill-defined is a trick. It gives religion more power, because it allows for it to be categorized as anything, including SCIENCE!! Again, I have addressed these in the article, with evidence and links. Watch the video “The evolution of confusion” by Daniel Dennett to see how religious scholars have worked hard to keep religion so easy to manipulate and confuse those who question the whole enterprise. Read Dennett’s account of how religion is a parasite and how it gets its hosts to act the way you are doing.
From the article:
“The most successful religions are those that have managed to extend the label of the religion over the entire cultural spectrum of a population. The religions that manage to do this have achieved a stranglehold over the cultural evolution of that group of people…The way a culture gets out from under the burden of repressive religious labels is by denying religious memes their hunger for co-opting the knowledge attained by rational discourse. That is, religion is designated a limited status, separate from factual aspects of the culture in which it exists………..This removal of the repressive influence of religion from fact-based aspects of human culture has been the greatest achievement of reason. Unfortunately, In India the ‘Hindu’ meme has successfully prevented many rationalists from differentiating between the religious memes of the group label ‘Hinduism’ and the rest of Indian culture.”
Also, re-read the section “What’s Wrong with the Hindu Label”.
Important topic, and very thought provoking article. Your conclusion that Hinduism is a restrictive label that limits India is spot on, and your analogy to a protective wire mesh covering a growing plant was apt as well as aesthetically pleasing.
May I offer a few points of constructive criticism about the way the argument has been formulated, which do not change the fact that I fundamentally agree with your point.
“Hinduism is a meaningless religious label.”
That it is not. It surely means something - the mishmash of superstition, tradition, culture and beliefs that pervades India. It is a bunch of nonsense, and yes, there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the definition, but that’s not unique to this particular label. People intuitively understand what it is to some extent, even if they fail to accurately state their understanding. It’s rhetorically unwise to start with a weak premise like that.
Next, the fact that it’s a “foreign” label of relatively late origin. True, but again, not really necessary. You’re leaving yourself open to be attacked on a point that is not necessary for your thesis.
“The sociobiological perspective is an objective scientific way of studying the evolution of complex cultural and behavioral trends”
Bringing in sociobiology, a science of rather dubious reputation (”just-so” stories etc.) wasn’t necessary either. The problem with sociobiology is that it’s not objective or scientific except in a limited set of cases. Convincing a skeptic that it’s applicable in this particular case is an uphill task. Why go that way if it isn’t really required?
The sections of your article titled “Benefits of the label” and “Two faces of Hinduism” are the core of your argument, and they’re accurate and well argued. This is where you build your case, and I’d say you did a very good job here. These sections rest your basic case on strong ground. If you’d skipped some of the earlier points and emphasized these more, that’d have improved the argument.
“What’s wrong with the Hindu label”
This section starts out very well, and you lay out the issues clearly and crisply. I liked the chilli-lemon photo as it captures the essence of the superstitions that the Hindu identity encourages.
Unfortunately, quoting Meera Nanda was unnecessary, and taints the argument with the stain of her rather unbelievably irrational thesis. Quoting from her book:
“It is the thesis of this book that the growing liberalization and globalization of the Indian economy is not only compatible with, but is actually contributing to the growth of a virulent form of political Hinduism which is as wedded to the project of politicizing and universalizing a Hindu (or “Vedic”) worldview”
You could do without associating with such irrationality. I’d hope you do not subscribe to similar views, because they seem far from rational.
“The Irony of Hindu Rationalism”
Weak. Even Richard Dawkins claims to be “culturally Christian”, so you start off at a rhetorical disadvantage. Imputing motives to Indian rationalists claiming the “Hindu” label would require more justification than you present. Again, I say your argument that the label is harmful is strong enough, so this is not fatal, but I wish this section had been better argued.
“An Alternative Narrative”
You’re back to arguing well here, and you present the alternative well. It’s not hard to see that we’d be much better off without the Hindu identity, and that there is an alternative.
All in all, a thought-provoking piece and fundamentally sound. Thanks!
Thank you for the constructive criticism. Such discussion is in the right spirit!
Thanks also for your compliments.
I agree that there are a few areas where I may be overselling my case.
I have a couple of objections to your comment. The first one is regarding sociobiology. Yes, its true that sociobiology as a whole has garnered a bad reputation, precisely because of the tendency among certain sociobiologists to construct unfalsifiable and untestable hypotheses. However, there are certain areas where there is little dispute. These are the areas of sociobiology that are not involved in making exact predictions about the origin of specific behaviors, but in understanding the nature of the behavior itself. In-group out-group behavior is well studied and tested. There is considerable evidence from studies with actual human and animal subjects, mathematical evidence from studies of population genetics in insect populations etc, computer simulation models to predict the development and evolution of conflict and co-operation, and so on. Despite its sociobiological affiliations, this area of study is firmly entrenched in evolutionary ecology.
The second comment is regarding the Meera Nanda references. Firstly, I quote Dr. Nanda in a different context from the one you present. There is no reason why the areas where I quote her are not absolutely accurate. Secondly, I have Meera Nanda’s book here by my desk as I write. I have read the words you quote, and have gone through the evidence she cites. Having done so, I cannot disagree with her conclusions. Despite how counter-intuitive it may feel to most educated, middle-class Indians, the evidence is overwhelming that the free-market has been good to the gods in India. This is not a political position, simply an affirmation of the facts. Remember, Dr. Nanda does not just blame the market; she blames an ‘unholy’ alliance between government, religion and the market. Go here
to see how she exposes the complicity of the government in promoting religion in India.
Again, thanks for your enlightening comment.
My point on sociobiology was related to the rhetorical necessity of not leaving oneself unnecessarily open to attack by association. It’d be easy for someone to respond to your piece with an attack on sociobiology, and you’d be left on the defensive though most of the negative history of sociobiology is strictly not relevant here. You’re on logically sound but rhetorically weak ground, would be how I’d state it.
The necessity to belong to groups is an important part of why religious labels tend to stick, as you correctly state. Perhaps simply stating that in-group/out-group behaviour is a well attested part of human psychology and religion is part of the same phenomenon, would keep the argument on sound ground rhetorically as well. My opinion, for what it is worth.
The free market has been good for the gods, no argument there. Indians have grown more prosperous, and tend to spend much of their money on anachronistic religious ritual. Being a home-visit pujari is a rather well-paying profession these days. What I’m not sure about is whether the causal relationship for Hindu revival attributed to globalization and the alleged government-market-religion nexus is true. Perhaps I think Dr. Nanda is making a stronger claim than you do, but I don’t agree that there is an unholy nexus going on. The Hindu establishment is as suspicious of the free market as the Left is.
You are right again, Spinoza. If I was arguing my case against an irrational believer they may try the wrong-by-association trick. However, I am not addressing my article to these folk. If irrational believers are interested in tearing down my ideas, there are plenty of other more accessible straw-men for them to have a grand time beating up ceremoniously. Most rational folk will see that such an attack is misguided and illogical. Still point taken. No need to associate a good idea with scientifically murky ones.
Regarding Meera Nanda’s ideas, I will be writing a review of ‘The God Market’ in the near future. Perhaps we can have a good discussion then. I will keep your objections in mind and approach the issues objectively.
Cheers!
I look forward to your review of “The God Market”, that should be an interesting discussion.
- ” you can be an atheist/rationalist and yet culturally and philosophically be Hindu”
If only I had a nickel every time I heard that one. A bold and well written article. Reminds me how (for lack of a better word) sponge-like Hinduism today is, or rather, has become. Few instances from my own experience
- When I left the “religion” column blank in a form, my dad was prompt to fill it up for me as “hindu”. When I explained to him that I’m an atheist and not really comfortable with the label, his initial reaction was something like…”I can understand not believing in god but, not-a-hindu??? How could you?”
- Being a Tamil, we were naturally proud when Abdul Kalam became president and A.R.Rahman won the oscars. I was pleased when my conservative hindu friends bushed aside their religion and joined in on the celebration. But somehow they couldn’t stop at that. They had to slap the ‘hindu’ label on them too. When asked why, the explanation was, “well, they might have converted to Islam later on, but surely their ancestors are Hindus. so nothing wrong in calling them hindus.”
- But when I extend this logic and question why there is such hue and cry over christian missionaries converting hindus to christianity (after all, they are still hindus after conversion aren’t they?), immediately some other part of their brain kicks in and they try to rationalise their opposition by pointing out at subversive practices by missionaries.
I really wish we could revive the rationalist roots of our ancestors from this adulteration. For my part, I have renounced the Hindu label long ago.
but going by the world geo and theo-politics, it would be better to remain a hindu than a ’secular’ GOK what, when since from the dark days in the annals of history, till now, fanatics of other religions have been and are hell-bent still on wiping out others’ identities to establish theirs…its better to assume a role of a global citizen and identity, but still, it somehow doesn’t make any sense to shed clothes when the need is to put armour on after being beaten up for centuries…and this is not just a figment of imagination or perceived threat of sorts. since we live a worldly life n not a carefree saintly one, it would be better to be prepared on all fronts…just a look at hardline islamic websites, comments of pakis (read ‘brainwashed islamists’), etc, would be enough for a reality-check…what you do with ur theistic/atheistic beliefs afterwards is ur own biz anyhow…
Well, rationalism is just as effective tool against radical islam as Hinduism is, if not more so. More muslims have become atheists, than Hindus. True there are people who wish nothing more than complete annihilation of India. But how does putting on the Hindu hat help?
that’s coz those with the intention of afflicting mental as well as physical blows to the nation back their offensive on their ‘great’ religious background n ‘pride’, n use this as their weapon (never realizing ever how utmost stupid this is)…its such a great comedy over which rarely does one ponder, that, we dont have our religious identities coz of choice, but coz of birth…one is not islamic/jew/christian/hindu, etc, coz he found the effectiveness of his/her path, but coz s/he was born into the respective family, n thus, as s/he grows, ignorantly, becomes more n more radical w/o ever finding out about the meaning of the path s/he follows…this is what should be rooted out — ‘bliss-in-ignorance’ radicalism…once 1 gains an understanding of each path, s/he finds there’s no big variance, n here one literally sees the convergence of all paths, n hence radicalism goes kaput !
being a hindu doesn’t mean 1 who goes to temples n worships idols of crores of weird creature-forms, n that 1 should be such a guy to defend his nation…not at all ! this is again hapless ignorant common-man antics, who takes almost everything at face-value, like a sheep….human beings are nothing but sheep. one who chooses to deviate from the herd is mocked at by the remaining herd; only either of them can be correct — the hollow-head herd, or the inquisitive individual…having an identity against an organised enemy helps (i’ve seen fundamentalists grilling so-called proud hindus on net with queries like ‘y ur krishna had 16k wives?’, ‘how can raavana have 10 heads?’, n the likes, n the latter either countering with ‘is allah a brothel-keeper?’, or rather sheepishly n cluelessly sink down saying ‘its our religion…’ haah !) neither of the two knows the real deal, but for the sake of keeping the enmity alive, use religion as their shield as well as weapon…
many of us who get disgusted with all this then turn to rather keep ’shut n off’, n turn to ruthless rationalism…though, in my view, n for me, rationalism is letting better sense prevail, n to never reject possibilities in the face of uncertainty n confusion…if one gets disgusted with radical n zero-mind religious bickerings, thats the perfect feeling one ought to have. but then to close the gates of this dimension is not the solution. need is to find the answers ourselves…once ppl know the real esoterism behind all myths n legends n what-nots, i am pretty sure no one would ever need to don a hindu/islamic/christian/sikh hat…but obviously, thats not the way the world is moving or would move…after all, as i said, humans are nothing but a herd of hysterical sheep…
I haven’t had a consistent answer to what it means to be a hindu!. Everyone seems to have a different answer. The constitution clearly defines it as a religion however.
The problem is when Hinduism starts to take credit or encompass things that doesn’t belong to it, like ancient Indian astronomy and philosophy. To a point where it seems to suggest that, without Hinduism these wouldn’t have been possible. After centuries they become “hindu astronomy” and “hindu philosophy”. An interesting parallel can be drawn to what is happening today in the US. Creationists, after realising that their fight against evolution is futile, are starting to adopt evolution into its fold as “god-guided-evolution” and calling it “christian-science”.
True, that belonging to a group against an organised enemy helps. If this enemy you are talking about is radical islamists across the border, then the group I’d like to belong to is group-India. The group-Hindu maybe a subset of this, and in which I don’t belong.
and u wont ever see any consistent reply to this question also, coz majority of the masses (n the constitution, which incidentally is not the word of some god but of a group, formed out of ppl from the same masses) equate ‘hinduism’ with a religion, whereas being a hindu (or sindhu) should logically imply ‘one who was born in hindustan (or sindhustan)’, whatever religion s/he might follow…interestingly, the word ‘india’ that we use so lavishly also didnt belong to us, until we were ‘garlanded’ by it later, though there’re no issues with its usage (yes, the constitution also quite funnily, says — ‘india, that is, bharat’, instead of the opposite !) similarly, as a matter of fact, the term ‘hindu’ came into usage not so long ago, whence earlier all our previous schools of thought, rituals, customs, arts, sciences, etc., were referred to as ‘vedic’, n life-philosophy as ’sanaatan’, n the beautiful n all-encompassing motto of ‘vasudaiva kutumbakam’ — ‘the world’s my family’, but certainly not ‘hindu’ (in fact, earlier, swami vivekananda n the likes everytime used to proudly use the term ‘vedic’ in their speeches n literature; no one was a ‘hindu’ back then !). guess this term also came into fashion when our western ‘bosses’ chose to refer this country as such…..n now since many years, petty politics, lame awareness, etc., have helped in settling the score with this all-pervading term ‘hindu’ for just everything n anything! incidentally, there’re some very maverick schools of thought like the ‘aghoris’, ‘naths’, ‘kinna sect’, etc, which strongly say they aren’t hindus (not in the way as if they’re from islam, christianity, judaism, etc, but only to mean that they cant be entangled in the chains of religion), n hence these schools are much misunderstood n scoffed at by the ever-ignorant general public !
n what’s happening in US, UK, or mars, on such matters, isnt much significant for me…what they say today becomes something else tomorrow….ppl there are known to be engaging in, many times, as from an eastern man’s POV, in quite insane activities, just for the adventure n kick of it (many of these who come here for knowledge can be found inebriated n intoxicated in the pubs of goa, raj, HP)…a group there has come up with, yet again, a very novel n comical concept — ‘church of scientology’ !
there’s one adage which means that ‘beware, for fighting against the beast, u urself dont become the beast !’
what it should all boil down to it, is, that while we are on our toes to engage ills like radicalism, fundamentalism, etc., we should be utmost cautious that we dont ourselves get covered under the sheath of radicalism, coz its human tendency, that, when one subscribes to any ideology, s/he almost always, gets inclined to, knowingly/unknowingly, isolate himself/herself from incoming whiffs of free breeze, wherein, if we observe closely our world, it wont take a genius to un’stand that nothing, n no one, can remain isolated from others all by himself/herself, whatever the matter be…
radicalism (be it islamist or anything else) isnt just on the other side of the wall, but on this side too…belonging to group-India is what is to be least expected of any fellow countrymen, but if talking of group-Hindu (ie, political or religious Hindu), then belonging to group-India is only what ’should be’ expected, nothing less, nothing more ! (on a different note, if we assume, though however a figment of far-fetched imagination it may seem, but since warfare strategy also takes into account the silliest of possibilities, that the nation is taken over by fundamentalists, particularly, islamist forces similar to the taliban, then expecting such born zero-minds to extend a hand of camaraderie towards ppl with a no-nonsense secular agenda would be like expecting a tiger to befriend a deer, when they would spare not a moment in quashing everything n everyone that doesn’t utter ‘wahada hu la shareek la hu’…a look at the blood-boiling interview-videos of a paki strategy analyst ‘zaid hamid’ n other such ppl, alongwith the brain-washed media ppl there, would be very helpful in gauging what kind of forces are at play, eager to dominate, in the world today…all this, coupled with the atrociously impotent n ‘democratic’ leadership of our nation in internal as well as external affairs, make me a stauncher than staunch supporter of martial law, similar on the lines of china’s commie rule, where the only religion n region that ppl would’ve in their minds would be ‘nationalism’ n ‘nation’ !) i really admire ur statement of being belonging to group-India ! thx…
Thanks for your comment, Bala. I am glad you are one of the Indian rationalists who has not been taken by the deception. I know exactly what you mean about the way Hindus can rationalize contradictory ideals.
It is indeed very amusing to see Tamil people who cannot stand that A.R. Rahman embraced Islam. To us Rahman is simply subscribing to another form of irrational belief, but to Hindus it is treason. I’m from TN too, by the way, and share your thoughts. The political climate in the state is interesting. One major party is founded on atheistic principles and another is led by a living Goddess. I’m a little bit proud of Rahman and Kalam and a lot more proud of Periyar.
I’m really glad to see such a firm determination in rationalists like you to, as you say, “revive the rationalist roots of our ancestors from this adulteration”.
Good one to read. But I couldn’t understand what do you mean by ‘Indian’ philosophy?
“word Hindu is not even an Indian word”
— what is an Indian word BTW?
If you don’t see how the entirety of the cultural history of a group of people deserves more credence than a dangerous and manufactured religious sub-culture this article is not for you. But for the sake of any actual rationalists who may be reading, we all know that there are varying degrees of certainty in categorical boundaries. There are no absolutes in such divisions as human culture. We are only pushing the line of division to where it makes the most sense. Political nationhood, geographical boundaries and shared cultural history are all on the more well-defined side of such categorizations of humanity, as opposed to arbitrary cultural sub-groups that rely on deceptively smudging the boundaries of their own meaning in order to exist as parasites within the greater culture of which they are a part. The external origin of the name only demonstrates how it was external influences that drove the evolution of the ideology and deception of ‘Hinduism’. It is not the foundation of the argument being made. It is mentioned as a reference to the irony in the adoption of a name from an external source by an ideology whose sole reason for existence is to distinguish itself from that external source. What is more important here is the abuse of Indian culture by a dangerous and deceptive sub-culture. You can change the name ‘India’ to anything you want and yet the concept of nationhood remains well-defined. You can change the name ‘Hinduism’ to anything else, and yet it remains an ideological, selective and arbitrary muddling of the history and culture of India.
Also, next time you may want to read beyond the first two paragraphs before picking a straw man.