Sugirtharajah - Imagining Hinduism

Introduction Hinduism has long been a central feature in Western consciousness. Ever since the West first came into contact with it, the tradition has been defined and interpreted mainly in Western categories. Western responses to Hinduism have been varied, complex, and ambivalent, ranging from romantic admiration to ridicule. What this volume seeks to do is to investigate some of these representations from a postcolonial perspective. Taking a brief look at the emergence of the concept Hinduism, it examines European orientalist and missionary constructions of Hinduism during the colonial period, and also examines how such representations impacted on Hindus in India and in the diaspora. The volume draws attention to how Hindu movements in the diaspora replicate orientalist articulations of Hinduism. In looking at these constructions of Hinduism, the volume aims to show how Hinduism came to be tailored to fit the varied hermeneutical and ideological positions of both Western and Indian interpreters, all of whom, on their own terms, tried to homogenize a loosely knit tradition and invest it with a tight structure, thereby making it static, fixed, and palatable. Before we proceed further, a brief note about the contentious terms, Hinduism and postcolonialism.

Defining, naming or classifying the Other is not peculiar to any one culture. Rather, it takes place within, as well as with respect to, other cultures. Naming the Other becomes problematic when one party tries to domesticate the Other. The term Hindu, which comes from the Sanskrit word Sindhu (the River Indus), was initially used by Persian-speaking Muslims to refer to those who lived in that geographical area near the River Indus, regardless of the residents particular religious affiliation. In its earlier phase, the term was applied to all non-Muslims, and did not always carry a specific religious significance. It was used in more than one sense by Muslims, sometimes for adherents of a non-Islamic religion, sometimes referring to the local inhabitants, and sometimes used in a geographical sense (Thapar 1993: 79). The use of the term as a religious category became explicit when Muslim conquerors used it to refer to the religious practices of the inhabitants whom they encountered in that geographical region. It became a convenient label to describe and at the same time to differentiate themselves from the local inhabitants. The fact that the term Hindu had a geographic connotation did not imply that the indigenous people had no sense of religious consciousness or identity. On the contrary, the people were from diverse communities which had their own languages, social and religious identities, customs and modes of worship. The point is that the term Hindu did not suggest any of the uniformity that it came to acquire later. The appropriation of the term by Hindus themselves can be traced back to the fifteenth century, in the literature of bhakti sects influenced by Islamic thought. In Kabrs verses one finds a reference to Hindus and Turukas (Muslims), Kabr himself being a product of both Hindu and Islamic cultures (Thapar 1993: 79). Initially perhaps the term was used by Hindus to distinguish themselves from Muslims, but there was no implication of Hinduism as a uniform system of religion in the Enlightenment sense. In other words, religion did not entail an adherence to a set of prescribed beliefs or a uniform creed, a single book or a single authority.