Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism" Author(S): Richard King Reviewed Work(S): Source: Numen, Vol

Home , Orientalism

Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism" Author(s): Richard King Reviewed work(s): Source: Numen, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1999), pp. 146-185 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270313 . Accessed: 18/07/2012 01:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

http://www.jstor.org ORIENTALISM AND THE MODERN MYTH OF "HINDUISM"

RICHARD KING

Summary Is therereally a singleancient religion designated by the catch-all term 'Hinduism' oris theterm merely a fairly recent social construction ofWestern origin? This paper examinesthe role played by Orientalist scholars in the construction ofWestern notions of Indianreligion by an examinationof theorigins of theconcept of 'Hinduism'. It is arguedthat the notion of 'Hinduism'as a singleworld religion is a nineteenth centuryconstruction, largely dependent upon the Christian presuppositions of the earlyWestern Orientalists. However, exclusive emphasis upon the role of Western Orientalistsconstitutes a failure to acknowledgethe role played by key indigenous informants(mostly from the brahmana castes) in the construction ofmodem notions of 'theHindu religion'. To ignorethe indigenous dimension of theinvention of 'Hinduism'isto erase the colonial subject from history and perpetuate the myth of the passiveOriental. The paper concludes with a discussionof the accuracy and continual usefulnessofthe term 'Hinduism'.

[I]twould appear that there is an intrinsicconnection between the 'Hinduism' thatis beingconstructed in the political arena and the 'Hinduism' of academic study.1 Today,there are perhapstwo powerful images in contemporary Westerncharacterizations ofEastern religiosity. One is thecontinually enduringnotion of the 'mystical East' - a powerfulimage precisely becausefor some it representswhat is mostdisturbing and outdated aboutEastern culture, whilst for others it representsthe magic, the mysteryand thesense of thespiritual which they perceive to be lackingin modemWestern culture. The depravity and backwardness

' FriedhelmHardy (1995), "A Radical Reassessmentof the Vedic Heritage- The Acaryahrdayamand its WiderImplications," in VasudhaDalmia and H. von Stietencron(1995), Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and NationalIdentity (Sage Publications,New DelhifThousandOaks/London), p. 48.

? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden (1999) NUMEN, Vol.46 Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 147 of theOrient thus appears to sit side by side withits blossoming spiritualityand culturalrichness. Both of thesemotifs have a long historicalpedigree, deriving from the hopes and fears of the European imaginationand its perennial fascination with the East. Thesecond image of Eastern religion - oneindeed that is increas- inglycoming to the fore in Western circles, is thatof the 'militant fa- natic.'Such a characterizationalsohas a considerableancestry, being a contemporarymanifestation ofolder colonial myths about Oriental despotismand the irrationality ofthe colonial subject. The particular natureof this construct is of course heavily influenced by the secular- istperspective ofmuch of modem Western culture. The image of the militantfanatic or religious'fundamentalist,' whilst frequently inter- wovenwith 'the mystical' characterization (particularly inthe empha- siswhich Western commentators place upon the 'religious' dimension ofconflicts such as AyodhydinIndia), it is rarelyexplicitly associated withthe notion of 'the mystical East' precisely because modem West- em understandingsof 'the mystical' tend to precludethe possibility ofan authenticmystical involvement in political struggle. The other- worldlyEastern mystic cannot be involvedin a this-worldlypolitical strugglewithout calling into question the strong cultural opposition be- tweenthe mystical and the public realms. The discontinuity between thesetwo cultural representations of the East has frequentlycreated problemsfor Western and Western-influenced observers who find it difficulttoreconcile notions of spiritual detachment with political (and sometimesviolent) social activism.2 Thus,in the modemera we findHinduism being represented bothas a globalizedand all-embracingworld-religion and as an intolerantand virulentform of religiousnationalism. Despite the apparentincongruity ofthese two representations, I will argue in this paperthat one feature which both characterizations share in common is thedebt they owe to WesternOrientalism. My argumentdoes not entailthat the modem concept of "Hinduism"is merelythe product

2 See MarkJuergensmeyer (1990), "WhatThe BhikkhuSaid: ReflectionsOn The Rise Of MilitantReligious Nationalism," in Religion 20, pp. 53-76. 148 RichardKing ofWestern Orientalism. Western influence was a necessarybut not a sufficientcausal factor in the rise of this particular social construction. To argueotherwise would be to ignorethe crucial role played by indigenousBrahmanical ideology in the formation ofearly Orientalist representationsofHindu religiosity.

Orientalismand theQuest for a Post-ColonialDiscourse

[A]nthropologistswho wouldstudy, say, Muslim beliefs and practices will need some understandingof how "religion"has come to be formedas conceptand practicein themodem West. For whilereligion is integralto modernWestern history,there are dangersin employingsuch a normalizingconcept when translatingIslamic traditions.3 Thisstatement by Talal Asad can be equallywell appliedto the studyof Asianculture in general.In recentyears scholars involved in suchstudy have become increasingly aware of the extent to which Westerndiscourses about Asia reflect power relations between Western andAsian societies. In thepostcolonial era, it has become imperative, therefore,toexamine this relationship with critical acumen. In 1978Edward Said published his ground-breaking work, Orien- talism.Western Conceptions of the Orient.4 In thisbook, Said launched a stingingcritique of Western notions of the East and the ways in which "Orientalistdiscourse" has legitimated the colonial aggression and po- liticalsupremacy ofthe Western world. Said'swork, however, is notable for a numberof obvious omissions. His analysisof French,British and, to a limiteddegree, American

3 Talal Asad (1993), Genealogiesof Religion: Disciplines and Reasonsof Power in Christianityand Islam(John Hopkins University Press, London), p. 1. 4 Said's workis clearlyindebted to earlierworks which have focusedupon the Westernconstruction of imagesof Asianculture and its people. Important works here areRaymond Schwab (1950), TheOriental Renaissance: Europe's Discovery of India and theEast, 1680-1880(English translation, 1984, Columbia University Press, New York)and JohnM. Steadman(1969), The Mythof Asia (Macmillan,Basingstoke). However,the first work which appears to focusupon the way in whichOrientalism functionsideologically as a supportfor colonial hegemony is AnwarAbdel Malek's (1963), "Orientalismin Crisis,"in Diogenes44. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 149

Orientalismdoes nottouch upon the strong tradition of Orientalist scholarshipin Germany,where it was not accompanied by a colonial empirein theEast. In fact,Sheldon Pollock has shownhow German Orientalistanalysis of Indian Vedic lore, profoundly affected Germany byfurnishing a racially-based, Indo-European myth of the pure Aryan race,which could subsequently be usedto distinguishthe Semites as "non-Aryan."5Thus, not only has Said'swork ignored important currentswithin European Orientalist discourse, it has also tendedto ignorethe ways in which such discourses affect the colonizer as well as thecolonized.6 Indeed, the examples of German Orientalists onthe onehand, and Japan on theother, cast doubt upon Said's thesis that Orientalistdiscourse is alwaysassociated with an imperialagenda, sinceGermany had no Easternempire to manipulateand control, andJapan was subjectedto Orientalist discourses without ever being colonizedby the West.7 SheldonPollock's discussion of German Orientalism suggests that theauthoritative power of suchdiscourses could equally be applied at hometo createa powerful'internal narrative,' in this case instru- mentalin theconstruction of a Germannational consciousness, and ultimatelyinthe hands of the National Socialists in "thecolonization anddomination ofEurope itself." Jayant Lele hasargued that as well as itsobvious consequences for Asia, Orientalism also functions toin- sulatethe Occident from the self-analysis which would be involvedin a properengagement with the cultures and perspectives of thenon- Westernworld. He furthersuggests that Orientalist discourses censure attemptstoanalyse the West in a self-criticaland comparative manner,

5 SheldonPollock (1993), "Deep Orientalism?Notes on Sanskritand Power Beyondthe Raj," in Carol A. Breckenridgeand Petervan der Veer (eds.) (1993), Orientalismand the PostcolonialPredicament (University of PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia),pp. 76-133. 60ne should note here thatinsofar as Said ignoresthe effectof Orientalist narrativesupon the colonizer he doesnot follow Foucault's analysis which attempts to demonstratethe sense in whichdiscourses construct both the subject and the object. 7 RichardH. Minear(1980), "Orientalismand theStudy of Japan,"in Journalof AsianStudies XXXIX, No. 3, pp. 507-517. 150 RichardKing bymisrepresenting bothAsian and Western culture. Thus, "through a culturallyimposed stupefaction ofthe people" both Western and non- Westernpeople are manipulatedand subjugatedthrough the "same projectof control and exploitation."8 This is a pointrarely noticed by criticsof Orientalism,namely, that in representingthe Orient as the essentializedand stereotypical "Other" of the West, the heterogeneity andcomplexity ofboth Oriental and Occidental remain silenced.9 Criticsof Said's work have suggested that he places too much em- phasison the passivity of the native,10 and that he doesnot really dis- cuss,nor even allow for, the ways in which indigenous peoples of the Easthave used, manipulated and constructed their own positive re- sponsesto colonialism using Orientalist conceptions. Homi Bhabha's notionof 'hybridity'for instance reflects an awarenessthat colonial discoursesare deeply ambivalent and not susceptible tothe constraints of a singleuni-directional agenda. Thus, Bhabha argues, the master discourseis appropriatedby thenative whose cultural resistance is manifestedthrough the mimicry and parody of colonial authority.11 In

8 JayantLele (1993), "Orientalismand theSocial Sciences,"in Breckenridgeand vander Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 59. 9Ashis Nandy (1983), The IntimateEnemy (Oxford University Press, Delhi), pp. 71-74.Nandy, by way of a broadlypsychoanalytic account of cultural interchange, suggeststhat the Orientalist projection of theEast as theWest's inverse double or "other"is a reflectionof the suppressed 'shadow' side ofWestern culture. It is in this sensethat we can see how theEnlightenment subordinated the poetic, the mystical, and thefeminine elements within European culture and projectedsuch qualities onto theOrient. 10See forinstance, Benita Parry (1992), "OverlappingTerritories and Intertwined Histories:Edward Said's PostcolonialCosmopolitanism," in M. Sprinker(ed.) (1992), EdwardSaid: A CriticalReader (Blackwell,Oxford), p. 34. See also Petervan der Veer(1993), "The ForeignHand. OrientalistDiscourse in Sociologyand Commu- nalism,"in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 23, and Rosalind O'Hanlon(1989), "Culturesof Rule,Communities of Resistance:Gender, Discourse andTradition in RecentSouth Asian Historiographies," in Social Analysis25, p. 109. 11See forinstance Homi Bhabha (1985), "Signs Takenfor Wonders: Questions of Ambivalenceand AuthorityUnder a Tree OutsideDelhi, May 1817,"in Critical Inquiry12, pp. 144-165. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 151 similarfashion Richard G. Foxhas pointed to the ways in which Sikh reformersin the 1920's accepted Orientalist stereotypes ofthe Sikh, andyet used them to create a massmovement inopposition to British colonialism.12The same transformation canbe seenin the Hindu context,where Orientalist presuppositions about the "spirituality" ofIn- dia etc.were used by reformers such as RammohunRoy, Dayinanda Saraswati,Sw~ mi Vivekinanda and Mohandas K. Gandhiin the developmentof an anti-colonialHindu nationalism. This no doubtreflects notonly the level of permeation ofOrientalist ideas amongst the na- tivepopulation of India (especially the colonially educated intelligentsia),but also the fact that such discourses do notproceed in an orderly andstraightforward fashion, being in fact adapted and applied in ways unforeseenby those who initiated them. Thus, Orientalist discourses wereappropriated bynative Indians in the nineteenth century and ap- pliedin sucha wayas toundercut the colonialist agenda, which, Said suggests,is implicated insuch discourses. Wehave already seen that Said's own negative appraisal of Orien- talismdoes not appear to leaveroom for indigenous appropriations ofOrientalist discourses for positive, anti-colonial goals. Equally, his workplaces little emphasis upon what Clifford calls a "sympathetic, nonreductiveOrientalist tradition."13 Richard Fox refers to this strand as "affirmativeOrientalism" and has in mind such Western apologists forIndian culture as theTheosophist Annie Besant, Hindu convert Sis- terNivedita, and apostle of non-violence, Tolstoy etc.14 In this context, one shouldexamine what is probablythe most scathing critique of Saidto date. David Kopf attacks Said for "dropping names, dates and anecdotes"and for adopting a method "which is profoundlystructural

12 RichardG. Fox (1992), "Eastof Said," in Sprinker(ed.) (1992),ibid., p. 146. But see Petervan derVeer (1994), ReligiousNationalism. Hindus and Muslimsin India (Universityof California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London), pp. 53-56,where it is arguedthat Sikh identity was utilizedbut not constructed by the British. 13Clifford (1988), The Predicamentof Culture:Twentieth Century Ethnography, LiteratureandArt (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), p. 261. 14 RichardFox (1992), ibid.,p. 152. 152 RichardKing andsynchronic" and thus "diametrically opposed to history.""5 Whilst Kopfsees a greatdeal of merit in Said'swork, he decriesthe use of theterm "Orientalism" to"represent a sewer category for all theintel- lectualrubbish Westerners have exercised in the global marketplace of ideas"(p. 498). Kopf, in fact, believes that Said has provided an overly negativeand one-sided analysis, which fails to takeinto account the positiveelements within Orientalist discourses. He suggeststhat mod- emOrientalism was born in Calcutta in 1784with the establishment of theAsiatic Society of Bengal and that, as such,British Orientalism can be saidto have given birth to the Bengal Renaissance since it "helped Indiansto findan indigenousidentity in themodem world" (p. 501). Kopfsuggests that these Orientalists "were men of social action, work- ingto modernize Hindu culture from within" (p. 502).These are to be contrasted,Kopf argues, with the anti-Orientalist Westernizers, as rep- resentedby the staunch Anglicist Thomas B. Macauley,for whom "a singleshelf of a goodEuropean library was worththe whole native literatureofIndia and Arabia."'6 Kopf comments, "It is curiousto me thatSaid completely ignores this very group of proto-imperialists who wereanti-Orientalist. Itis their ideology and not that of the Orientalists whichSaid reviews in his work" (p. 503). Ifwe examine Kopf's position more closely we shallsee the source of disputeand confusionbetween him and Said. Kopfpraises the modernizingefforts ofthe Orientalists who, servedas avenueslinking the regionaldlite with the dynamiccivilization of contemporaryEurope. They contributed tothe formation ofa new Indian middle

15David Kopf(1980), "Hermeneuticsversus History," in Journalof Asian Studies XXXIX, No. 3, May 1980, p. 499. RosaneRocher also arguesthat Said's approach "does to orientalistscholarship what it accusesorientalist scholarship of having done to thecountries East of Europe; it creates a singlediscourse, undifferentiated in space andtime and across political, social and intellectual identities." Rosane Rocher (1993), "BritishOrientalism in the EighteenthCentury: The Dialectic of Knowledgeand Government,"in Breckenridge and van der Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 215. 16Macauley's Minute of Education (1835), quoted in Kopf(1980), ibid.,p. 504,but originallyquoted in Kopf(1969), BritishOrientalism and TheBengal Rennaissance (Universityof California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London), p. 248. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 153

class and assistedin theprofessionalization of theBengali intelligensia.They startedschools, systematizedlanguages, brought printing and publishingto India, and encouragedthe proliferationof books,journals, newspapers, and othermedia of communication.Their output was urbanand secular.They built thefirst modem scientific laboratories in India and taughtEuropean medicine. Theywere neither static classicists nor averse to theidea of progress,and they historicizedthe Indian past and stimulated consciousness of historyin theIndian intellectual.17 Whatis strikingabout this description of theactivities of British OrientalistsinIndia is thatKopf praises them so unequivocally,whilst criticssuch as Said(and I wouldinclude myself here) find such activ- itiesdeeply problematic. Kopf's dispute with Said is reallya debate aboutthe extent to whichone can differentiatemodernization from westernization.Kopf's view is thatthe two can be easilydifferenti- atedand that the Qrientalists were solely in favour of modernization, whilstAnglicists like Macauley were fervently in favour of both.s1 Thus,according to Kopf "nineteenth century Europe was not so much thesource of modernity as it was the setting for modernizing processes thatwere themselves transforming Western cultures," and that for the Orientalist,"the important thing was to setinto motion the process ofmodernization through which Indians might change themselves accordingto their own value system."19 However,itseems at best naively simplistic, and at worst downright false,to suggestthat we candrive a firmwedge between westerniza- tionand modernization. What usually counts as "modernity"seems to be boundup with attitudes and social changes that derive from the Eu- ropeanEnlightenment. Thus, despite the claimed cultural and political

17David Kopf(1969), ibid.,p. 275, quotedby the authorin Kopf (1980), ibid., pp. 502-503. 18David Kopf(1969), ibid.,pp. 275-276. 19David Kopf(1969), ibid.,pp. 277-278.For Kopfthen it is merelya historical accidentthat the social process of modernizationbegan in Europe(p. 276). However, evenif this were the case, it is stillnaive to believethat one can exportthe results of thisprocess without also exportingthose features which are peculiarlyEuropean in nature. 154 RichardKing neutralityofthe language of "modernization," andtheir dispute with theAnglicists, Kopf's (affirmative) Orientalists were still involved in theEuropeanization ofthe Orient, and, even when they appeared to be promotingthe vernacular and the indigenous, their methods, goals and underlyingvalues presupposed the supremacy of Europeanculture. Thatthis is so canbe seeneven by an examinationofthe quotations whichKopf elicits as evidenceof the Orientalists' opposition to westernization.Thus, he quotes H. H. Wilson,whom he describes as "one ofthe greatest Orientalists" as promoting the cultivation ofSanskrit so thatnative dialects may "embody European learning and science."20 Again,W. H. MacNaughtenis quoted as attackingthe westernizer's positionon the grounds that "if we wish to enlighten the great mass of thepeople in Indiawe mustuse as ourinstruments theLanguages of India... ourobject is to impartideas, not words ..."21 Thus,despite Kopf'sprotestation to the contrary, the Orientalists were also acting incomplicity with European imperial aspirations even if their rhetoric wasless confrontational, aggressive and condescending. The complex- ityof the issues surrounding the Anglicists vs. theOrientalists in the postcolonialera is reflected,for instance, in GayatriSpivak's refusal toendorse a blanket return to "native" languages in India. It is perhaps importanttonote that English has become increasingly "nativized" in colonialand postcolonial India, and still represents a much greater po- tentialfor international interaction (albeit due to British imperial hegemony)than the 'native' languages. Nevertheless, Spivak suggests an "inter-literary"approach, arguing that "the teaching of English litera- turecan become critical only if it is intimatelyyoked to theteaching ofthe literary or cultural production inthe mother tongue."22 The colonialprejudices of such'eminent scholars' of theOrient as WilliamJones and James Mill (fatherof JohnStuart Mill), is evidentin their work. William Jones has been described as theWestern

20 David Kopf(1980), ibid.,p. 505. 21 David Kopf(1969), ibid.,p. 250, quotedagain in Kopf(1980), ibid.,p. 504. 22 GayatriChakravorty Spivak (1993), "The Burdenof English,"in Breckenridge and vander Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 151. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 155 scholarmost responsible for first introducing a "textualized" India to Europeans. The mostsignificant nodes of William Jones' work are (a) theneed for translation by theEuropean, since the natives are unreliableinterpreters oftheir own laws andculture; (b) thedesire to be a law-giver,to givethe Indians their "own" laws; and (c) thedesire to "purify"Indian culture and speakon itsbehalf.... In Jones' constructionof the"Hindus", they appear as a submissive,indolent nation unable toappreciate the fruits of freedom, desirous of being ruled by absolute power, and sunkdeeply in themythology of an ancientreligion.23 As TejaswiniNiranjana suggests, "This Romantic Orientalist project slides almostimperceptibly into the Utilitarian,Victorian enterprise of 'improving'the natives through English education."24 James Mill's threevolumed History of BritishIndia (1817) continuesto be influentialin its monolithicapproach to Indianculture, its homogenizing referencesto "Hinduism,"and its highly questionable periodization of Indianhistory.25 It is naiveof Kopfto believethat all Orientalistswere opponents of westernization.He failsto see boththe polyphonic nature and multi- ple layersof colonialdiscourse, nor does he seem to haveattempted to liftthe veil of rhetoricalsubterfuges which often occlude imperi- alisticmotivations. Consequently, Kopf argues that "Orientalism was thepolar opposite of Eurocentric imperialism as viewedby the Asians themselves....If Orientalismwas merelythe equivalent of imperialism, ..." he asks,"... thenhow do we accountfor the increasingly nostalgicview of Orientalistsnurtured by latergenerations of Hindu intelligentsia?"26Our answerto thisquestion has alreadybeen put forwardin therecognition that the 'Hinduintelligentsia' were them- selvesinfluenced by the West's stereotypical portrayal of "theOrient."

23 TejaswiniNiranjana (1990), "Translation,Colonialism and Rise of English,"in Economicand PoliticalWeekly XXV, No. 15,April 14th 1990, p. 774. 24 TejaswiniNiranjana (1990), ibid.,p. 775. 25 See RomilaThapar (1992), InterpretingEarly India (OxfordUniversity Press, Delhi),pp. 5-6; 89; Petervan der Veer (1993) in Breckenridgeand van der Veer (eds.), ibid.,p. 31. 26 David Kopf(1980), ibid.,p. 505. 156 RichardKing

The extentto whichthe Anglicist Macauley was successfulin hisaim "to forma class whomay be interpretersbetween us and themillions whomwe govern;a class of persons,Indian in blood and colour,but Englishin taste,in opinions,in morals,and in intellect,"27will be- comereadily apparent later when we considerthe development in the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries of thenotion of a singlereligious entityknown as "Hinduism."The notionof a Hindureligion, I suggest,was initiallyconstructed by WesternOrientalists based upon a Judaeo-Christianunderstanding of whatmight constitute a religion. This construct,of course,was subsequentlyadopted by Hindunation- aliststhemselves in thequest for home rule (swaraj) and in response to Britishimperial hegemony.

Orientalismand Indology EdwardSaid's examplesare mainly taken from the "Middle-Eastern" context,no doubta reflectionof his ownPalestinian origins, and it has beenleft to othersto explore the implications of his work further afield. In recentyears, with the publication of WilhelmHalbfass (1988), In- dia and Europe.An Essay in Understanding,and Ronald Inden (1990), ImaginingIndia, the Orientalist problematic has beendiscussed in relationto thestudy of Indianreligion and philosophy.28Inden, for instance,suggests that Indological analysis functions to portrayIndian thoughts,institutions and practices as aberrationsor distortions of normative(i.e., Western)patterns of behaviour.29 According to Inden,In- dologicaldiscourse transforms Indians into subjugated objects of a su-

27 Macauley(1835), 'Minuteon IndianEducation,' quoted in TejaswiniNiranjana (1990), "Translation,Colonialism and Rise of English,"in Economicand Political WeeklyXXV, No. 15,April 14th 1990, p. 778. 28For a recentcollection of worksresponding to Halbfass'interventions in the Orientalistdebate see Eli Franco and Karin Preisendanz(eds), (1997), Beyond Orientalism.The Workof WilhelmHalbfass and its Impacton Indian and Cross- CulturalStudies (Rodopi, Amsterdam,Poznani Studies in the Philosophyof the Sciencesand theHumanities), 673 pp. 29Ronald Inden (1986), "OrientalistConstructions of India,"in Modem Asian Studies20, No. 3, p. 411. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 157 perior(i.e. higher-order) knowledge, which remains in the possession ofthe Western Indological expert. This is becauseIndological works do notprovide merely descriptive accounts of that which they study, butalso provide commentaries which claim to representthe thoughts andactions of the Indian subject in such a manneras tocommunicate theirgeneral nature or "essence" to theWestern reader. Inden is also criticalof 'hegemonic' accounts which provide reductionist and causal explanationsfor the "irrational" behaviour of Indians (irrational inthe sensethat it requires explanation tothe rational Westerner). Such reductionistaccounts suggest that Indian civilizationis, thus,unlike the West,fundamentally a product of its environment,and a defectiveproduct at that.European civilization is theproduct ofrational human action. Especially since the so-called Enlightenment the West has been guidedby scientificreason in shapingits institutionsand beliefs.... Modem science has acquiredprivileged knowledge of the naturalworld. It has made a 'copy' of thatexternal reality unprecedented in its accuracy.The institutionsof theWest have therefore come more closely to conformto whatis, in thisdiscourse, 'natural'. Traditional and non-Westernsocieties have, because of theirinaccurate or falsecopies of externalreality, made relatively ineffective adaptationsto theirenvironments. They have notevolved as fastas themodem West.30 Inden,however, seems to overstatehis case at times.I do not acceptthat all explanationsof Indianthought and behaviour imply theirrationality ofIndians. Explanations are necessary because Indian cultureis differentfrom Western culture in manyrespects; rejecting Orientalistprojections of an "Other",will notsmooth over these differences.Providing an insightfulaccount of Indianthought for theWestern reader, whilst it mayinvolve some distortion of the materialunder consideration is necessary for this reason and not becauseEuropeans are superior or more rational than Indians. Equally, reductionistaccounts can be, andincreasingly are being, applied to Westernhistory and culture itself. In fact,one mightargue that the currentwave of postmodern anxiety about the foundations ofWestern

30Inden (1986), ibid.,p. 441, 415. 158 RichardKing civilizationis partlya consequenceof historicistand reductionist analysisbeing applied reflexively tothe West itself! Inden,thus provides us witha highlypolemical and generally neg- ativeaccount of Indologicalscholarship.31 His analysis,however, is insightfuloninnumerable occasions and contains a number of salient points.He suggeststhat Indological scholarship in thepast has been dominatedby the privileged voice of the 'positivist' and the 'empirical realist'.32Inden, at timesreminiscent of the neo-pragmatist philoso- pherRichard Rorty and the philosopher ofscience Paul Feyerband, re- jectswhat he describesas the'positivist' claim that there is "a single, determinatereality" and that the tools of Western science have privi- legedaccess to that reality through forms of knowledge which directly correspondor 'mirror'it. I rejectthe duality of knower and knownpresupposed by thisepisteme. It is my positionthat knowledge both participates in the constructionof realityand is itselfnot simply natural (in thesense of necessaryand given),but, in largepart, constructed.33 Indenalso suggeststhat the essentialism inherent in mostOrien- talistdiscourses should be comprehensivelyrefuted. This is theten- dencywithin most Indological accounts to claim to have uncovered the "essence"of the object under consideration, through careful scholarly analysis.Thus, works which purport toexplain the "Oriental mind-set" orthe "Indian mentality" etc., presuppose that there is a homogenous, andalmost-Platonic "essence" or "nature" which can be directlyintu- itedby the Indological expert. Inden is correct,in my view, to attack

31Richard G. Fox criticizesInden for his condemnationof "all South Asian scholarshipas Orientalist".According to Fox, Inden's work displaysjust those stereotypingtendencies in his approachto Orientalistscholarship as he attacksin the scholarshipitself, though this may reflect a lack of appreciationon Fox's partof the extentto whicheven "affirmativeOrientalism" contributes to Europeanhegemony over the East. See RichardG. Fox (1992), "East of Said," in M. Sprinker,ibid., pp. 144-145. 32Inden (1986), ibid.,p. 440. 33Inden (1986), ibid.,pp. 444-445. As withEdward Said, we can clearlysee the influenceof Foucault on Inden'swork. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 159 suchessentialism, rooted as itis inthe Enlightenment belief in a uni- fiedhuman nature, not just because it misrepresents theheterogeneity ofthe subject-matter, butalso because of the way in which such essen- tialismresults in theconstruction ofa culturalstereotype which may thenbe usedto subordinate,classify and dominate the non-Western world. Inden'swork, however, is also interesting forhis critical analysis of "affirmativeOrientalism." This strand of Orientalist discourse, labelled 'romantic'by Inden because of its indebtedness toEuropean Romanti- cism,is generallymotivated by an admirationfor, and sometimes by a firmbelief in, the superiority ofEastern cultures. The romantic image ofIndia portrays Indian culture as profoundlyspiritual, idealistic and mystical.Thus, as PeterMarshall points out As Europeanshave alwaystended to do, theycreated Hinduism in theirown image.Their study of Hinduismconfirmed their beliefs and Hindusemerged fromtheir work as adheringto somethingakin to undogmaticProtestantism. Latergenerations of Europeans,interested themselves in mysticism,were able to portraythe Hindus as mystics.34 We woulddo well to notethe reason why Inden criticizes the Romanticconception of India as the'Loyal Opposition.' This reflects thefact that 'Romantic Orientalism' agrees with the prevailing view thatIndia is themirror-opposite ofEurope; it continuesto postulate cultural"essences" and, thus, perpetuates the same (or at least similar) culturalstereotypes about the East. The Romanticistview of the Orient,then, is stilla distortion,even if motivated attimes by a respect forthe Orient. As such,it participates inthe projection of stereotypical formswhich allows for a domesticationand control of the East. Whatis interestingabout the "mystical" or "spiritual"emphasis whichpredominates inthe Romanticist conception of India is notjust thatit has become a prevalenttheme in contemporary Western images ofIndia, but also that it has exerted a great deal of influence upon the

34Peter Marshall (1970), The BritishDiscovery of Hinduismin the Eighteenth Century(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), p. 43-4,quoted in Inden(1986), ibid.,p. 430. 160 RichardKing self-awarenessofthe very Indians which it purports todescribe. Some mightargue, as DavidKopf clearly does, that such endorsement byIn- diansthemselves suggests the anti-imperial nature of such discourses, yetone cannotignore the sense in whichBritish colonial ideology, throughthe various media of communication, education and institu- tionalcontrol has made a substantialcontribution to the construction ofmodem identity and self-awareness amongst contemporary Indians. Europeantranslations of Indiantexts prepared for a Westernaudience provided to the 'educated'Indian a wholerange of Orientalistimages. Even whenthe anglicisedIndian spoke a languageother than English, 'he' wouldhave preferred, because of thesymbolic power attached to English,to gain access to his own pastthrough the translations and histories circulating through colonial discourse. Englisheducation also familiarisedthe Indian with ways of seeing, techniques of translation,or modesof representationthat came to be acceptedas 'natural.'35 Perhapsthe primary examples of thisare thefigures of Swaimi Vivekinandaand Mohandas K. Gandhi.36Vivekinanda (1863-1902) founderof the Ramakrishna Mission, an organizationdevoted to the promotionofa contemporaryform of Advaita Vedenta (non-dualism), placedparticular emphasis upon the spirituality ofIndian culture as a curativeto the nihilism and materialism ofmodemrn Western culture. In Vivekinanda'shands, Orientalist notions of India as "otherworldly" and"mystical" were embraced and praised as India'sspecial gift to humankind.Thus the very discourse which succeeded in alienating, subordinatingand controllingIndia was usedby VivekSinandaas a religiousclarion-call for the Indian people to unite under the banner ofa universalisticand all-embracing Hinduism. Up India,and conquerthe world with your spirituality... Ours is a religionof whichBuddhism, with all itsgreatness is a rebelchild and of whichChristianity is a verypatchy imitation.

35Tejaswini Niranjana (1990), "Translation,Colonialism and Rise of English,"in Economicand PoliticalWeekly XXV, No. 15,April 14th 1990, p. 778. 36Mohandas Gandhi, too, was also influencedby Western, Orientalist conceptions of India, only reallydiscovering the fruitsof India's religioustraditions through theRomanticist works of theTheosophical Society. For a discussionof thisand its relevanceto theOrientalist debate see Fox (1992), in Sprinker(1992), ibid,pp. 152f. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 161

The salvationof Europe depends on a rationalisticreligion, and Advaita - non- duality,the Oneness, the idea of theImpersonal God, - is theonly religion that can haveany hold on anyintellectual people.37 Colonial stereotypesthereby became transformed and used in the fightagainst colonialism. Despite this, stereotypes they remain! Viveki- nanda'simportance, however, far outweighs his involvementwith the RamakrishnaMission. He attended(without invitation) the First World Parliamentof Religionsin Chicago in 1893,delivering a lectureon Hinduism(or at least on hisown conception of thenature of Hinduism andits relationship with the other "world-religions"). Vivekinanda was a greatsuccess and initiated a number of successful tours of the United Statesand Europe.In theWest he was influentialin the reinforce- mentof the Romanticist emphasis upon Indian spirituality, and in India VivekSinandabecame the focus of a renascentintellectual movement, whichmight more accurately be labelled"Neo-Hinduism" or "Neo- Vedinta"rather than "Hinduism."

TheMyth of Homogeneity and theModem Myth of 'Hinduism' Scepticismabout the applicabilityof globalized,highly abstract and univocalsystems of thoughtonto the religious experience of humankind(as manifestedby the "world-religions" approach to the study of religions)has been expressedby scholarslike WilfredCantwell Smithon thegrounds that such an approachprovides us withan overly homogenizedpicture of human cultural diversity.38 We can see theim- plicationsof thismore clearly if we questionthe claim, supported by such figuresas Gandhi,Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Vivekdinanda,

37Swarmi Vivekiinanda, Collected Works. Vol III, p. 275 andII, p. 139. 38With regard to our currentdiscussion Cantwell Smith states that, "The term 'Hinduism'is, in myjudgement, a particularlyfalse conceptualization,one thatis conspicuouslyincompatible with any adequate understanding ofthe religious outlook of Hindus."(W. CantwellSmith [1964], The Meaningand End of Religion,p. 61). More recentlyFriedhelm Hardy (1990) has suggested,"That the global titleof 'Hinduism'has been givento [thisvariety of religions]must be regardedas an act ofpure despair." (The Religions ofAsia, Routledge, London/New York, p. 72). 162 RichardKing thatthere is a singlereligion called "Hinduism," which can be mean- ingfullyreferred toas thereligion of the Hindu people. The notionof "Hinduism" is itselfa Western-inspiredabstraction, whichuntil the nineteenth century bore little or no resemblance tothe diversityof Indian religious belief and practice. The term "Hindu" is thePersian variant of the Sanskrit sindhu, referring tothe Indus river, andwas usedby thePersians to denotethe people of thatregion.39 TheArabic 'Al-Hind,' therefore, is a termdenoting a particular geo- graphicalarea. Although indigenous use of the term by Hindus them- selvescan be foundas earlyas thefifteenth and sixteenth centuries, its usagewas derivative ofPersian Muslim influences and did not repre- sentanything more than a distinctionbetween 'indigenous' or 'native' andforeign (mleccha).40 For instance, when Belgian Thierry Verhelst interviewedan Indianintellectual from Tamil Nadu he recordedthe followinginterchange, Q: Areyou a Hindu? A: No,I grewcritical of it because of casteism... Actually, you should not ask peopleif they are Hindu. This does not mean much. If you ask them what their religionis, they will say, "I belongto this caste.'41

39H. vonStietencron argues that this usage of theterm is attestedto in Old Persian cuneiforminscriptions from the time of Darius I, who expandedhis empireas far as theIndus in 517 B.C.E. H. von Stietencron(1991), in GiinterD. Sontheimerand HermannKulke (eds.) (1991), HinduismReconsidered (Manohar Publications, New Delhi),p. 12. 40Romila Thapar (1989), "ImaginedReligious Communities?Ancient History and theModem Searchfor a HinduIdentity," in Modem Asian Studies23, No. 2, p. 224 (reprintedin Thapar[1992]). See also NarendraK. Wagle (1991), "Hindu- Musliminteractions in medievalMaharashtra," in Sontheimerand Kulke (eds.) (1991), ibid.,pp. 51-66, and JosephT. O'Connell (1973), "GaudiyaVaisnava symbolism of deliverancefrom evil," in Journalof theAmerican Oriental Society 93, No. 3, pp. 340-343. 41Thierry Verhelst (1985), Cultures,Religions and Developmentin India: Inter- viewsConducted and recordedby Thierry Verhelst, 14 to 23-1-1985.A PhD working groupon Religionsand Cultures,Brussels: Broederliyk Delen, Mimeo, p. 9 quotedin Balagangadhara(1994), p. 16. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 163

Indeed,it is clearthat the term "Hindu," even when used by the indigenousIndian, did not have the specifically religious connotations whichit subsequently developed under Orientalist influences until the nineteenthcentury.42 Thus, eighteenth century references to"Hindoo" Christiansor "Hindoo"Muslims were not uncommon.43 As Romila Thaparpoints out in herdiscussion of the reception of Muslims into India,"The people of Indiado notseem to haveperceived the new arrivalsas a unifiedbody of Muslims. The name 'Muslim' does not occurin therecords of the early contacts. The term used was either ethnic,turuska, referring to the Turks, or geographical,Yavana, or cultural,mleccha.""44 One shouldalso notethe distinctively negative natureof theterm, the primary function of whichis to providea catch-alldesignation for the "Other," whether negatively contrasted withthe ancient Persians, with their Muslim descendants, orwith the laterEuropean Orientalists who eventually adopted the term. Indeed thesame is apparentfrom an examinationofmodem Indian law. For examplethe 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, section 2 (1) definesa 'Hindu' as a categoryincluding not only all Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs but also anyonewho is nota Muslim,a Christian,a Parsee or a Jew.Thus even in thecontemporary context the terms 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism'are

42 ParthaChatterjee, in fact,argues that the notion of "Hindu-ness"has no specificallyreligious connotation to it and that"The idea that'Indian nationalism' is syn- onymouswith 'Hindu nationalism' is not thevestige of some premodernreligious conception.It is an entirelymodem, rationalist, and historicistidea. Like othermod- em ideologies,it allowsfor a centralrole of the state in themodernization of society and stronglydefends the state's unity and sovereignty.Its appealis notreligious but political.In thissense the framework of itsreasoning is entirelysecular." See Partha Chatterjee(1992), "Historyand the Nationalization of Hinduism," in Social Research 59, No. 1,p. 147. 43R.E. Frykenberg(1991), "The emergenceof modern'Hinduism' as a concept andan institution:A reappraisal with special reference to SouthIndia," in Sontheimer andKulke (eds.) (1991), ibid.,p. 31. 44Romila Thapar (1989), ibid.,p. 223 (reprintedin Thapar[1992]). 164 RichardKing essentiallynegative appellations, functioning as an all-inclusive rubric forthe non-Judaeo-Christian 'Other'.45 "Hindu"in fact only came into provenance amongst Westerners in theeighteenth century. Previously, the predominant Christian perspec- tiveamongst the Europeans classified Indian religion under the all- inclusiverubric of Heathenism.On thisview there were four major religiousgroups, Jews, Christians, Mahometans (i.e. Muslims),and Heathens.Members of the last category were widely considered to be childrenof the Devil, and the Indian Heathens were but one particular sectalongside the Africans and the Americans (who even today are referredtoas American'Indians' in an attemptto drawa parallelbe- tweenthe indigenous populations of India and the pre-colonial popu- lationof the Americas). Other designations used to refer to the Indians were'Banians,' a termwhich derives from the merchant populations ofNorthern India, and 'Gentoos', which functioned as an alternative to'Heathen.' Nevertheless, as Western knowledge and interest inIndia increased,the term 'Hindu' eventually gained greater prominence as a culturallyand geographically more specific term. Theterm "Hinduism," which of course derives from the frequency withwhich 'Hindu' came to be used,is a Westernexplanatory construct.As suchit reflects the colonial and Judaeo-Christian presuppo- sitionsof theWestern Orientalists who first coined the term. David Kopfpraises this 'gift' from the Orientalists seemingly unaware of the Eurocentricagenda underlying itand the extent to which the superim- positionof the monolithic entity of "Hinduism" upon Indian religious materialhas distorted and perhaps irretrievably transformed Indian re- ligiosityin a westernizeddirection. Thus, he states that,

45This has lead FritsStaal, for instance to arguethat "Hinduism does notmerely failto be a religion;it is noteven a meaningfulunit of discourse.There is no wayto abstracta meaningfulunitary notion of Hinduismfrom the Indian phenomena, unless itis doneby exclusion..." (FritsStaal [1989],Ritual Without Meaning, p. 397). Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 165

The workof integratinga vast collection of myths,beliefs, rituals, and laws into a coherentreligion, and of shapingan amorphousheritage into a rationalfaith knownnow as "Hinduism"were endeavors initiated by Orientalists.46 The term"Hinduism" seems first to have made an appearancein theearly nineteenth century, and graduallygained provenance in the decades thereafter.Eighteenth century references to the 'religionof the Gentoos,'(e.g. NathanielBrassey Halhead [1776], A Code of GentooLaws) were graduallysupplanted in the nineteenthcentury by referencesto 'the religionof the Hindoos,'- a preferencefor the Persianas opposedto thePortuguese designation of theIndian people. However,it is not untilthe nineteenthcentury proper that the term'Hinduism' became used as a signifierof a unified,all- embracingand independent religious entity in bothWestern and Indian circles.The OxfordEnglish Dictionary traces "Hindooism" to an 1829 referencein theBengalee, (Vol 45), and also refersto an 1858 usage by the GermanIndologist Max Miuller.47Dermot Killingley, however,cites a referenceto "Hindooism" by Rammohun Roy in 1816. As Killingleysuggests, "Rammohun was probablythe firstHindu to use the wordHinduism."48 One hardlyneed mentionthe extent to whichRoy's conceptionof the 'Hindu' religionwas conditioned byEuropean, Muslim and Unitarian theological influences. Ironically thereis considerablereason therefore for the frequencywith which Westernscholars have described Roy as "thefather of modemIndia." WesternOrientalist discourses, by virtueof theirprivileged political statuswithin 'British' India, have contributed greatly to the modern constructionof "Hinduism"as a singleworld religion. This was some-

46 David Kopf(1980), ibid.,p. 502. 47 See Max MUiller(1880), Chipsfrom a GermanWorkshop II, xxvii,304. See Frykenberg(1991), ibid., p. 43, note7. Clearlythe term is in provenanceby this time sincewe findCharles Neumann using the term 'Hindooism' in his 1831 workThe Catechismof theShamans whilst explaining the sense in whichBuddhism is to be understoodas "a reformof theold Hindooorthodox Church" (p. xxvi). 48 DermotKillingley (1993), RammohunRoy in Hinduand ChristianTradition, TheTeape Lectures 1990, (Grevatt and Grevatt, Newcastle-upon-Tyne), p. 60. 166 RichardKing whatinevitable given British control over the political, educational and mediainstitutions ofIndia. If we note, for instance, the extent to which theBritish established an educationsystem which promoted the study ofEuropean literature, history and science, and the study of Indian cul- turethrough the medium of English or vernaculartranslations ofthe workof Western Orientalists, ifwe alsoacknowledge the fact that all ofIndia's universities were established by the British, and according to Britisheducational criteria, we can see the extent to which Macauley's hopeof an 61ite class of Anglicized Indians was put into practice.

Christianity,Textualism and theConstruction of "Hinduism" Europeancolonial influence upon Indian religion and culture has profoundlyaltered its nature in themodem era. In particularI would liketo highlighttwo ways in whichWestern colonization has con- tributedtothe modem construction of"Hinduism" - firstlyby locat- ingthe core of Indian religiosity in certain Sanskrit texts (the textual- izationof Indian religion) and secondly by an implicit (and sometimes explicit)tendency to defineIndian religion in termsof a normative definitionofreligion based upon contemporary Western understandingof the Judaeo-Christian traditions. These two processes are clearly interwovenin a highlycomplex fashion and one might even wish to arguethat they are in fact merely two aspects of a singlephenomenon - namelythe westernization ofIndian religion. Nevertheless, they re- quiresome attention ifwe areto grasp the sense in which the modern conceptionof Hinduism is indeeda modemdevelopment! Westernliterary bias has contributedto a textualizationofIndian religion.49This is notto denythat Indian culture has its own literary traditions,rather itis toemphasize the sense in which Western presuppositionsabout the role of sacred texts in 'religion'predisposed Orien- taliststowards focusing upon such texts as theessential foundation for

49In factone could arguethat in focusingone's criticalattention upon Orientalist texts,the textualist paradigm which underlies them remains largely unchallenged. See forinstance, Breckenridge and van der Veer(eds.) (1993), p. 5, wherethis point is madein passingbut never properly addressed. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 167 understandingtheHindu people as a whole.Protestant emphasis upon thetext as thelocus of religion, therefore, placed a particularemphasis uponthe literary aspects of Indian culture in thework of Orientalists. Academicsand highly educated Western administrators arealready in- clinedtowards literary forms of expression because of their training andso itis notthat surprising tofind Orientalists (both old and new) beingdrawn towards Indian literary materials as keysources for un- derstandingIndian culture. Many of the early European translators of Indiantexts were also Christian missionaries, who, in their translations andcritical editions of Indian works, effectively constructed uniform textsand a homogenizedwritten canon through the imposition ofWest- ernphilological standards and presuppositions onto Indian materials.50 Thus,the oral and 'popular' aspects of Indian religious tradition were eitherignored or decried as evidenceof the degradation ofcontempo- raryHindu religion into superstitious practices on the grounds that they bearlittle or no resemblance to"their own" texts. This attitude was eas- ilyassimilated with the pilranically inspired, brahmanical belief in the currentdeterioration ofcivilization inthe age of kaliyuga. The textualistbias of WesternOrientalists has had farreaching consequencesin theincreasingly literate India of the modern era. As RosalindO'Hanlon (1989) writes theprivileging of scribal communities and authoritative interpreters of 'tradition' provided,on theone hand,an essentialrequirement of practicaladministration.

50Frykenberg even goes as faras to suggestthat Christian missionary activity was probablythe largest single factor in thedevelopment of a 'corporate'and 'revivalist' Hinduismin India.See Frykenberg(1991), ibid.,p. 39. See also VinayDharwadker (1993), "Orientalismand theStudy of IndianLiteratures," in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,pp. 158-185for an insightfuldiscussion of theways in whichthe various forms of "Indian literature" were studied according to theEuropean literarystandards of the time.Dharwadker also discussesthe natureof nineteenth centuryEuropean philology and itspresuppositions (e.g., pp. 175; 181). Dharwadker also drawsattention to theSanskritic bias ofthe Western Orientalists. See also Rosane Rocher(1993), "BritishOrientalism in theEighteenth Century," in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,pp. 220-225 (especiallyp. 221), and Petervan der Veer(1993), in Breckenridgeand van der Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 40. 168 RichardKing

On theother, it formed a crucialcomponent in colonialism'slarger project itself forthe textualization of cultures,for the construction of authoritativebodies of knowledgeabout Hinducommunities as the means of securing'freedom' to followtheir own customs.51 WilliamJones for example, in his roleas SupremeCourt Judge in India,initiated a projectto translatethe Dharmanastras in the misguidedbelief that this represented thelaw of the Hindus, in order to circumventwhat he sawas the'culpable bias' of the native pandits. In takingthe Dharmaidstras as a bindinglaw-book, Jones manifests the Judaeo-Christianparadigm within which he conceived of religion, and theattempt to applysuch a bookuniversally reflects Jones' 'textual imperialism.'52The problem with taking the Dharmaastrasas pan- Indianin applicationis thatthe texts themselves were representative of a priestly6lite (the brahmana castes), and not of Hindus in toto. Thus,even within these texts, there was no notion of a unified,Hindu community,but rather an acknowledgementof a pluralityof local, occupationaland caste contexts in whichdifferent customs or rules applied.53Itwas thus in this manner that

societywas made to conformto ancientdharmaSastra texts, in spiteof those texts' insistencethat they were overriddenby local and group custom.It eventuallyallowed Anglicist administrators to manipulate the porous boundary betweenreligion as definedby textsand customsthey wished to ban.54(my italics) Thereis, ofcourse, a dangerthat in criticallyfocusing upon Ori- entalistdiscourses one might ignore the importance of nativeactors andcircumstances inthe construction ofWestern conceptions ofIndia. Hereperhaps we shouldnote the sense in whichcertain 6litist com-

51Rosalind O'Hanlon (1989), ibid.,p. 105. 52 See Breckenridgeand vander Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 7. 53 See RomilaThapar (1989), ibid.,pp. 220-221(reprinted in Thapar[1992]). See also S. N. Balagangadhara(1994), TheHeathen in His Blindness:Asia, theWest and theDynamic ofReligion (E.J. Brill, Leiden), pp. 16-17and chapters 3 and4 ingeneral. 54 Rosane Rocher(1993), in Breckenridgeand van der Veer(eds.) (1993), ibid., p. 242. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 169

munitieswithin India (notably the scholarly brahmana castes), exerted a certaindegree of influenceupon the Western Orientalists, thereby contributingtothe construction ofthe modem, Western conception of "Hinduism".The high social, economic and, to some degree, political statusof the brahmana castes has, no doubt, contributed tothe elision betweenBrahmanical forms of religion and "Hinduism." This is most notablefor instance in the tendency toemphasize Vedic and Brahman- ical textsand beliefs as centraland foundational to the "essence" of Hindureligiosity ingeneral, and in themodem association of 'Hindu doctrine'with the various Brahmanical schools of the (inpar- ticularAdvaita Indeed,Neo-Veddntic rhetoric Vedi.ntaabout the underlyingunity ofVed.nta). Indian religion has tended to supportthe Westerners' preconceived notion that it was one religionthey were dealingwith. Since they were used to theChristian tradition of an absoluteclaim foronly one truth,of a powerfulchurch dominating society, and consequentlyof fiercereligious and social confrontation with members of other creeds, they were unableeven to conceiveof suchreligious liberality as would give membersof thesame societythe freedom, by individualchoice, to practicethe religion they liked. As a result,Western students saw Hinduismas a unity.The Indianshad no reasonto contradictthis; to themthe religious and culturalunity discovered by Westernscholars was highlywelcome in theirsearch for national identity in the periodof strugglefor national union.55 C.A. Baylynotes, for instance, the extent to which the administra- tiveand academic demand for the literary and ritual expertise of the Brahminsplaced them in a positionof direct contact and involvement withtheir imperial rulers; a factorthat should not go unnoticedin at- temptingtoexplain why Western Orientalists tended to associate Brah- manicalliterature and ideology with Hindu religion in toto.56 Itis clear that,in thisregard at least,Western Orientalists, working under the aegisof a Judaeo-Christianreligious paradigm, looked for and found

55H. von Stietencron(1991), in Sontheimerand Kulke(eds.) (1991), ibid.,pp. 14- 15. 56C.A. Bayly (1988), Indian Societyand the Making of the BritishEmpire (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge), pp. 155-158. 170 RichardKing an ecclesiasticalauthority akin to Western models of an ecclesiastical hierarchy.Inthe case of the Brahmanical 'priests' and pandits, already convincedof the degradation ofcontemporary Indian civilization inthe presentera of kaliyuga, these scholars generally found a receptiveand willingreligious 61ite, who, for that very reason remained amenable to therhetoric of reform. The Brahmanicalreligions, of course,had already been active in theirown appropriation ofnon-Brahmanical forms of Indian religion longbefore the Muslim and European invasions. Brahminization, viz., theprocess whereby the Sanskritic, 'high' culture of the brahmins, ab- sorbednon-Brahmanical (sometimes called 'popular,' or even 'tribal') religiousforms, was an effective means of assimilating diverse cultural strandswithin one's locality, and of maintainingsocial and political authority.57Theprocess works both ways, of course, and many of the featuresof Sanskriticreligion initially derived from a particular,lo- calizedcontext.58 Nevertheless, inthe case of the educated brahmana castes,the British found a looselydefined cultural 6lite that proved

57Brahminization, or thegeneral process whereby non-Brahmanical forms of In- dian religionare colonizedand transformedby hegemonicBrahmanical discourses, can be distinguishedfrom the more general process of Sanskritization.The confuta- tionof thetwo stemsfrom a mistakenassociation of Sanskriticculture exclusively withthe brahmana castes. As MiltonSinger has suggestedSanskritization may follow theksatriya, vaifya or eventhe 0adra models (Milton Singer (1964), "TheSocial Organizationof Indian Civilization," in Diogenes 45, pp. 84-119.)Srinivas, in his later reflectionsupon Sanskritization, also pointsto theSanidh Brahmins of Western Uttar Pradeshas evidencethat the culture of the Brahmins is notalways highly Sanskritic in nature.(See Srinivas[1968], Social Changein ModemIndia [Universityof Califor- nia Press,Berkeley/Los Angeles/London], p. 20. WhilstBrahminization in thewidest sense,then, cannot be universallyequated with Sanskritization, throughout this work I shalluse theterm 'Brahminization' as a short-handterm for Sanskritic Brahminiza- tion,that is to denotea particularspecies of Sanskritization. 58The ideologicalconstructs and colonial nature of Brahmanical discourses, as rep- resentedin distinctionsbetween vaidik (i.e. derivedfrom the Vedas), shastrik (derived fromthe 62astras),and laukik(worldly) forms of knowledgeclearly demonstrates the sense in whichthe imperialist thrust of Orientalismis not an isolatedhistorical or evenan exclusivelyWestern phenomenon. For a discussionof thissee SheldonPol- Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 171 amenableto an ideologywhich placed them at theapex of a single worldreligious tradition.59 Ifone asks who would most have benefit- tedfrom the modem construction ofa unifiedHindu community fo- cusingupon the Sanskritic and Brahmanical forms of Indian religion, theanswer would, of course,be thosehighly educated members of thehigher brahmana castes, for whom modem 'Hinduism' represents thetriumph of universalized, Brahmanical forms of religion over the 'tribal'and the 'local'. Statistically, forexample, itwould seem that in post-IndependenceIndia the brahmin castes have become the dominant socialgroup, filling 36 to 63% ofall governmentjobs, despite repre- sentingonly 3.5% ofthe Indian population.6 As Frykenbergpoints out, Brahminshave always controlledinformation. That was theirboast. It was theywho had providedinformation on indigenousinstitutions [for Western orientalists].It was theywho providedthis on a scale so unprecedentedthat, lock (1993), in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,pp. 78; 96f; 107; 117,note 1. 59For a discussionof thisin relationto the politicsof translationsee Richard Burghart(1991), "SomethingLost, Somethinggained: Translations of Hinduism," in Sontheimerand Kulke (eds.) (1991), ibid.,pp. 213-225. See also Petervan der Veer (1993), in Breckenridgeand van der Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,p. 23, 26-27, 40; BernardCohn (1968), "Noteson theHistory of theStudy of IndianSociety and Culture,"in MiltonSinger and BernardCohn (eds.) (1968), Structureand Changein IndianSociety (Aldine, Chicago), pp. 3-28; JonathanParry (1985) "The Brahmanical Traditionand the Technology of the Intellect," in Joanna Overing (ed.) (1985), Reason and Morality(Tavistock Publications, London), pp. 200-225. Talal Asad (1993), providesa cogentdiscussion of thepolitical implications of linguisticand cultural translationin thelight of inequalitiesof powerbetween the contexts of thetranslator and thetranslated (pp. 189-199).Thus, Asad notesthat, "To putit crudely,because thelanguages of thirdworld societies, ... are seen as weakerin relationto Western languages(and today, especially to English), they are more likely to submitto forcible transformationin the translation process than the other way around" (p. 190). 60 See KhushwantSingh in Sunday:23-29 December 1990, p. 19,quoted in Gerald Larson(1993), "DiscourseAbout 'Religion' in Colonial and Postcolonial India," from NinianSmart and ShiveshThakur (eds.) (1993), Ethicaland PoliticalDilemmas of ModernIndia (St. Martin'sPress), pp. 189-190. 172 RichardKing

at leastat thelevel of All-Indiaconsciousness, a newreligion emerged the likes ofwhich India had perhaps never known before.61 The Sanskritic"Brahmanization" of Hindu religion (itself repre- sentingone stagein thetextualization process), was filteredthrough colonialdiscourses, thereby furnishing a new holistic and unified conceptionof the multiplicity ofIndian religious phenomena throughout history.Such an approach remains profoundly anti-historical inits postulationof an ahistorical"essence" to which all formsof "Hinduism" are saidto relate.As Said has suggested,such an abstractand syn- chronicapproach is oneway in whichOrientalist discourses funda- mentallydistinguish the passive and ahistorical Orient from the active andhistorically changing Occident. In thismanner, Orientals are ef- fectivelydehumanized (since denied an activerole in the processes of history),and thus, made more amenable to colonial manipulation. As RomilaThapar suggests, this new Hinduism, furnished with a brah- manicalbase, was mergedwith elements of "uppercaste belief and ritualwith one eye on theChristian and Islamic models," this was thoroughlyinfused with a politicaland nationalistic emphasis. Thapar describesthis contemporary development as "Syndicated Hinduism," andnotes that it is "beingpushed forward as thesole claimant of the inheritanceofindigenous Indian religion."62 Thisreflects the tendency, during and after European colonialism, forIndian religion to be conceivedby Westerners and Indians them- selvesin a mannerconducive to Judaeo-Christian conceptions of the natureof religion;a processwhich Veena Das has describedas the 'semitification'ofHinduism in the modem era. Thus, since the nine-

61 Frykenberg(1991), ibid.,p. 34. For discussionsof theactive part which native Indiansplayed in the constructionof Orientalistdiscourses see NicholasB. Dirks (1993), "ColonialHistories and NativeInformants: Biography of an Archive"and David Lelyveld(1993), "TheFate of Hindustani: Colonial Knowledge and the Project of a NationalLanguage," both in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid., pp. 279-313and 189-214. 62Romila Thapar (1985), "SyndicatedMoksha," in Seminar313 (September), p. 21. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 173 teenthcentury "Hinduism" has developed,and is notablefor, a numberof new characteristics,which seem to have arisenin responseto Judaeo-Christianpresuppositions about the natureof religion.This newform of organizedor, "Syndicated Hinduism" seeks historicityfor the incarnationsof its deities,encourages the idea of a centrallysacred book, claims monotheismas significantto the worshipof deity,acknowledges the authorityof the ecclesiasticalorganization of certain sectsas prevailingover all and has supportedlarge-scale missionary work and conversion.These changes allow it to transcendcaste identities and reach out to largernumbers.63 In thecontemporary era, then, "Hinduism" is characterizedby both an emerging"universalistic" strand which focuses upon proselytiza- tion(e.g. Neo-Vedinta,Sathya Sai Baba, BhagwanShree Rajneesh, TranscendentalMeditation, etc.) as wellas so-called"fundamentalist," "revivalist"and "nationalist"strands that focus upon the historicity of humanincarnations of Visnu, such as Rima andKrsna, the sacrality of theirpurported birthplaces, and an antagonisticattitude towards non- Hindureligions (notably the Indian Muslims).64 One hardlyneed point to thesense in whichthese developments mimic traits usually associ- atedin theWest with the Judaeo-Christian traditions.65 Indeed,it would seem that the key to the West's initial postulation of theunity of "Hinduism"derives from the Judaeo-Christian presuppo- sitionsof theOrientalists and missionaries.Convinced as theywere thatdistinctive religions could not coexistwithout frequent antago- nism,the doctrinal liberality of Indianreligions remained a mystery withoutthe postulation of an overarchingreligious framework which couldunite the Indians under the flag of a singlereligious tradition.

63 RomilaThapar (1989), ibid.,p. 228. 64 See Daniel Gold (1991), "OrganizedHinduism: From Vedic Truthto Hindu Nation,"in MartinE. Martyand R. ScottAppleby (eds.) (1991), Fundamentalisms Observed(University of Chicago Press), pp. 531-593,for an outlineof contemporary "fundamentalist"and "nationalist"trends in India. 65See Hans Bakker(1991), "Ayodhyd:A HinduJerusalem. An Investigationof 'HolyWar' as a ReligiousIdea in theLight of CommunalUnrest in India,"in Numen XXXVIII,No. 1,pp. 80-109. 174 RichardKing

Howelse can the relatively peaceful co-existence ofthe various Hindu movementsbe explainedwithout some sense of religious unity? Why else wouldHindus of differing sectarian affiliations accept the exis- tenceof rival gods unless they belonged to the same religious tradition? Failureto transcend a model of religion premised on the monotheistic exclusivismof Western Christianity thereby resulted in theimagina- tiveconstruction of a singlereligion called "Hinduism". Of course, beingable to classify Hindus under a singlereligious rubric also made colonialcontrol and manipulation easier. The fact that the semblance ofunity within India owed considerable debt to imperialrule seems to havebeen forgotten. The lackof an orthodoxy,of an ecclesiastical structure,or indeed of anydistinctive feature which might point to thepostulation of a singleHindu religion, was dismissed, and one consequenceof this was the tendency toportray 'Hinduism' as a con- tradictoryreligion, which required some form of organizationalong ecclesiasticaland doctrinal lines, and a purgingof 'superstitious'ele- mentsincompatible with the 'high' culture of 'Hinduism'. Thisnew epistime66 created a conceptual space in the form of a ris- ingperception that "Hinduism" had become a corruptshadow of its formerself (which was now located in certain key sacred texts such as theVedas, the Upanisads and the Bhagavad Giti - all takento pro- videan unproblematicaccount of ancient Hindu religiosity). The per- ceivedshortcomings ofcontemporary 'Hinduism' in comparison tothe idealform, as representedinthe text, thus created the belief (amongst bothWesterners and Indians) that Hindu religion had stagnated over thecenturies and was thereforein need of reformation. The gapbe- tweenoriginal (ideal) 'Hinduism' and the contemporary beliefs and practicesof Hindus was soon filled of course by the rise of what have becomeknown as 'Hindureform movements' in thenineteenth century- groupssuch as theBrahmo Samaj, the Arya Samaj and the Ra-

661 am usingepistome here in a broadlyFoucaultian sense to denotethat which "definesthe conditions of possibility of all knowledge,whether expressed in a theory orsilently invested in practice" (Foucault [1973], The Order of Things (Pantheon, New York),p. 168. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 175 makrishnaMission. Virtually all textbookson Hinduism describe these groupsas 'reform'movements. This representation, however, falls into thetrap of seeing pre-colonial Hindu religion(s) through colonial spec- tacles.When combined with a highlyquestionable periodization of Hindureligious history (which ultimately derives from James Mill's A Historyof British India) the impression is given (i). thatHinduism is a singlereligion with its origins in theVedas, (ii). thatfrom the 'medieval'period onwards (c. 10thcentury onwards) Hinduism stag- natedand lost its potential for renewal, and (iii). that with the arrival of theWest, Hindus became inspired to reform their now decadent reli- gionto something approaching itsformer glory. This picture of Indian history,as problematic as it is prevalent,reflects a Victorian and post- Enlightenmentfaith in theprogressive nature of history.Thus, Hin- duismin the twentieth century is allowed to enter the privileged arena ofthe 'world religions,' finally coming of age in a globalcontext and satisfyingthe criteria of membership established by Western scholars ofreligion! To illustratethe arbitrariness involved in thehomogenization of Indianreligions under the rubric of "Hinduism," let us briefly consider whathappens if one applies the same a prioriassumption ofreligious unityto Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As vonStietencron argues, if one takesthese three 'religions' to be sectsor denominationsof a singlereligion one can pointto a commongeographical origin in theNear East, a commonancestry (Abrahamic tradition), a common monotheism,a common prophetism, all threeaccept a linearand eschatologicalconception of history, uphold similar (though varying) religiousethics, work within a broadly similar theological framework withregard to theirnotions of a singleGod, thedevil, paradise, creation,the status of humankind within the workings of history, as wellas, of course,revering the Hebrew Bible (to varyingdegrees). On theother hand, however, there is no commonfounder of the three movements,probably no doctrinewhich is validfor all adherents, no uniformreligious ritual or ecclesiasticalorganization, and it is notimmediately clear that the adherents of thesethree movements 176 RichardKing believein the same God.67 If we then consider the diversity ofreligious movementsusually subsumed under the label "Hinduism" we will find a similarpicture. Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that nineteenth and twentiethcentury "Hindus" have generally not objected to the postulationof a singlereligious tradition as a wayof understanding theirbeliefs and practices,whereas Jews, Christians and Muslims generallyremain very protective of theirown group identities. This Hinduattitude does not merely reflect the colonization oftheir thought- processesby the Orientalists. Postulation of Hinduunity was to be encouragedin the developmentof Indianautonomy from British rule.Swaraj (home rule) was seento be inconceivablewithout the unificationof Indiaalong nationalistic and culturallines. Not only that,although sectarian clashes have always occurred, ingeneral Indian religiousgroups appear to have been able to live together ina manner unprecedentedin the history of the Judaeo-Christian religions in the West. Consequently,it remains an anachronismto project the notion of "Hinduism"as itis commonlyunderstood into pre-colonial Indian history.Before the unification begun under imperial rule and consolidated bythe Independence of 1947it makesno senseto talkof an Indian 'nation,'nor of a religioncalled "Hinduism" which might be taken to representthe belief system of the Hindu people. Today of course thesituation differs insofar as onecan now point to a looselydefined culturalentity which might be labelled"Hinduism", or, as somepre- fer,"Neo-Hinduism" (though this latter term implies that there was a unifiedcultural entity known as "Hinduism"which can be pinpointed in thepre-colonial era). The presuppositions of the Orientalists can- notbe underestimatedinthe process whereby nineteenth and twentieth centuryIndians have come to perceive their own identity and culture throughcolonially crafted lenses. It is clear,then, that from the nineteenthcentury onwards Indian self-awareness has resulted in thede- velopmentofan intellectualand textually-based "Hinduism" which is

67 H. vonStietencron (1991), ibid.,pp. 20-21. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 177 then'read back' (if you pardon the 'textual' pun) into India's religious history.Indeed, The constructionof a unifiedHindu identity is of utmostimportance for Hindus wholive outside India. They need a Hinduismthat can be explainedto outsiders as a respectablereligion, that can be taughtto theirchildren in religious education,and that can formthe basis forcollective action.... In an ironictwist of history,orientalism is nowbrought by Indians to Indiansliving in theWest.68 As mentionedearlier, the invention of "Hinduism"as a single "world"religion was also accompaniedby therise of a nationalist consciousnessin Indiasince the nineteenth century.69 The modem nation-state,of course, is a productof Europeansocio-political and economicdevelopments from the sixteenth century onwards, and the introductionofthe nationalist model into Asia is a furtherlegacy of Europeanimperialism in this area. It is somewhatironic, therefore, to findthat the very Hindu nationalists who fought so vehemently againstBritish imperialist rule, themselves accepted the homogenizing conceptsof 'nationhood'and 'Hinduism,'which ultimately derived fromtheir imperial rulers.70 It is difficultto see whatalternative the

68 Petervan derVeer (1993) in Breckenridgeand van derVeer (eds.) (1993), ibid., pp. 42-43. 69 See ParthaChatterjee (1992), "Historyand theNationalization of Hinduism,"in Social Research59, No.1, pp. 111-149and Chatterjee(1986), NationalistThought and theColonial World.A DerivativeDiscourse (Zed Books Ltd, London); Mark Juergensmeyer(1993), The New Cold War? ReligiousNationalism Confronts the Secular State (Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London). Of relevancehere also is thework of David Lelyveld("The Fateof Hindustani: Colonial Knowledgeand theProject of a NationalLanguage," in Breckenridgeand van der Veer[eds.] [1993],ibid., pp. 189-214)on therole which Hindustani and Hindiplayed in thefailed colonial project of constructinga national language in India. See also ArjunAppadurai's discussion of theway in whichthe quantification process initiated by gatheringof statisticalinformation for the Census etc.,functions as a meansof constructinghomogeneity - ("Numberin the Colonial Imagination," in Breckenridge andvan der Veer [eds.] [1993], ibid., especially pp. 330-334). 70 For a comprehensivediscussion of the colonial roots of Indian nationalist consciousness,see ParthaChatterjee (1986), NationalistThought and theColonial World- A DerivativeDiscourse? (Zed Books Ltd., London).See also Chatterjee 178 RichardKing anti-colonialistshad, since the nation-state provides the paradigmatic buildingblock of all contemporaryeconomic, political and cultural interaction.Thus, as DavidLuddens has suggested,the authority of Orientalistdiscourses initially derived from colonialism, ... butit was reproducedby anti-imperial, national movements and reinvigorated by Partition,in 1947,and thereorganization of Indianstates, in 1956; it thrives todayon conflictexpressed in religiousand ethnicterms. In its reificationof traditionand of oppositionsbetween East and West,nationalized orientalism suffusespostcolonial political culture and scholarshipthat claims to speakfor India by definingIndia's identityin a postcolonialworld.... Having helped to makenations in SouthAsia whatthey are, orientalism fuels fires that may consumethem.71

(1992), "Historyand theNationalization of Hinduism,"in Social Research59, No. 1, pp. 111-149. 71 David Ludden (1993) "OrientalistEmpiricism: Transformations of Colonial Knowledge,"in Breckenridgeand van der Veer (1993), ibid.,p. 274. In relation to this a numberof commentatorshave suggestedthat the problemsassociated with"communalism" are legaciesof Britishimperial rule. Thus, Aditya Mukherjee arguesthat "Indian societywas not split since 'time immemorial'into religious communalcategories. Nor is it so dividedtoday in areaswhere communal ideology has not yet penetrated....However, communalism as it is understoodtoday, ... is a modemphenomenon, which took roothalf way throughthe Britishcolonial presencein India- in thesecond half of thenineteenth century." See A. Mukherjee (1990), "Colonialismand Communalism," in SarvepalliGopal (ed.) (1990),Anatomy of a Confrontation.The Babri Masjid-RamjanmabhumiIssue (Penguin,Harmonds- worth,Middlesex), p. 165. See also Romila Thapar (1989), ibid., p. 209, and GyanendraPandey (1990), The Constructionof Communalismin Colonial North India (OxfordUniversity Press). See also ArjunAppadurai (1993), "Numberin the ColonialImagination," in Breckenridgeand van der Veer (eds.) (1993), ibid.,pp. 314- 340; Ludden(1993), ibid.,pp. 266-267; van derVeer (1993), ibid.,p. 39; Sheldon Pollock(1993), ibid.,p. 107; 123, note42. Froma Westernsecular perspective 'the problemof communalism'is understoodas evidenceof the existence of old religious allegianceswhich are in conflictwith the secular perspective of modemnationalism. However,for a critiqueof thehegemony of thesecular nationalist model of theWest see MarkJuergensmeyer (1993), ibid. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 179

RomilaThapar consolidates this position by pointing to the political consequencesof theconstruction of a commonHindu identity. Thus, sheargues that, Since it was easy to recognizeother communities on thebasis of religion,such as Muslimsand Christians,an effortwas made to consolidatea parallelHindu community.... In Gramsci'sterms, the class whichwishes to become hegemonic has to nationalizeitself and the 'nationalist'Hinduism comes fromthe middle class.72

TheStatus of the Term "Hinduism" Giventhe evidence which we havejust considered is it stillpossible to use the term"Hinduism" at all? One mightwish to arguethat theterm "Hinduism" is a usefulconstruct insofar as it refersto the generalfeatures of "Indianculture" rather than to a singlereligion. JuliusLipner has recentlyargued that scholars should retain the term "Hinduism"insofar as itis usedin a non-essentialistmanner to referto Hinduculture and notto theidea of a singlereligion. Lipner suggests thatthe Western term 'Hinduism' when used in thissense is effective so longas itrepresents the 'dynamic polycentrism' of Hinduta (Hindu- ness).73 However,even Lipner'scharacterization of 'Hinduism'remains deeplyindebted to SanskriticBrahmanism. It is difficultto see, even on thisview, why Buddhism and Jainismare notthemselves part of Hindutd.Despite Lipner's explicit disavowal of an essentialistor rei-

72 Romila Thapar(1989), ibid.,p. 230. Daniel Gold suggeststhat "Postcolonial Hindu fundamentalismcan thus appear as a new colonialismof the victors.In representingan emergenceof Indicgroup consciousness in newforms shaped by the colonialexperience, it can easilylead to a tyrannyof themajority. For it keepsthe Westernidea ofreligious community as an ideallyhomogenous group, but abandons theideas of equalityamong communities and protectionsfor minorities introduced withsecular British administration..." (Gold [1991],ibid., p. 580.) 73Julius J. Lipner(1996), "AncientBanyan: An Inquiryin to the Meaningof 'Hinduness'in ReligiousStudies 32, pp. 109-126.Lipner's use of 'Hinduta'reflects his explicitavoidance of the term'Hindutva' which has been appropriatedin the politicalarena by Hindu nationalists (see pp. 112-113). 180 RichardKing fledrendering of theterm, his descriptionof 'Hinduism'as "macro- cosmicallyone thoughmicrocosmically many, a polycentricphenom- enonimbued with the same life-sap, the boundaries and (micro)centres seemingto mergeand overlapin a complexusof oscillatingten- sions,"74is likelyto continueto cause misunderstanding,just as it is is also likelyto be appropriatedby the inclusivismof Neo-Vedinta (whichattempts to subsumeBuddhism [in particular]under the um- brellaof an absolutismof theAdvaita Veddnta variety) and Hindu na- tionalistgroups alike. Although the modem Indian Constitution [arti- cle 25 (2)] classifiesall Buddhist,Jains and Sikhs as 'Hindu,'this is un- acceptablefor a numberof reasons. Firstly, because it rides roughshod overreligious diversity and establishedgroup-affiliations. Secondly, such an approachignores the non-Brahmanicaland non-Vedicele- mentsof these traditions. Fundamentally, such assimilation effectively subvertsthe authority of members of these traditions to speak for themselves.In thelast analysis, Neo-Vedintic inclusivism remains inappro- priatefor the simple reason that Buddhists and Jainsdo notgenerally see themselvesas followersof sectarian denominations of "Hinduism." Lipner'sappeal to 'polycentricism'and perspectivism as character- isticof Hinduthought also failsto salvage a recognizablesense of Indianreligious unity since it amounts to statingthat the unity of "Hin- duism"(or Hindutd)can be foundin a relativisticrecognition of per- spectivein a greatdeal ofHindu doctrine and practice. This will hardly suffficeif one wishesto use theterm "Hinduism" in a waywhich is in anymeaningful respect classifiable as a 'religion'in themodem West- ernsense of theterm. One mightwish to postulate"Hinduism" as an underlyingcultural unity but this too is likelyto prove inadequate once onemoves beyond generalized examination and appeals to cultural homogeneity.Yet even if one accepts "Hinduism" as a culturalrather than as a specificallyreligious unity, one wouldthen need to acknowledge thesense in whichit was no longeridentifiable as an "ism,"thereby renderingthe term obsolete or at bestdownright misleading. To continueto talkof "Hinduism"even as a broadcultural phenomenon is

74J. Lipner (1996), ibid.,p. 110. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 181 as problematicas thepostulation of a unifiedcultural tradition known as "Westernism."There are general features of bothIndian and West- ernculture which one can pinpointand analyse to a certaindegree, but neitherterm should be reified. IndologistWilhelm Halbfass has attackedthe claim that"Hin- duism"is an Orientalistconstruction by appealingto theuniversality of theconcept of Dharma in pre-modernHindu thought. We cannotreduce the meaningsof dharmato one generalprinciple; nor is thereone singletranslation that would cover all its usages. Nevertheless,there is coherencein thisvariety; it reflectsthe elusive, yet undeniable coherence of Hinduismitself, its peculiar unity-in-diversity.75 Accordingto Halbfass,despite specific "sectarian" allegiances (e.g. toVaisnavism or Saivism) the theoreticians and literary representatives ofthese traditions "relate and refer to one another,juxtapose or coordi- natetheir teachings, and articulate their claims of mutualinclusion or transcendence"in a mannerindicative of a widersense of Hindu unity and identity.76However, the 'elusive' glue which apparently holds to- getherthe diversity of Indianreligious traditions is notfurther elabo- ratedupon by Halbfass, nor is this'unity-in-diversity' as 'undeniable' as he suggests.As we have seen,the nineteenth century Orientalists tendedto postulatean underlyingunity to Hindureligious traditions because theytended to view Indianreligion from a WesternChris- tianperspective. Halbfass at leastis willingto admitthat the reality of "Hinduism"is "elusive"and that the use ofthe term 'religion' to translatethe concept of Dharma is problematic.77Nevertheless, in myview he failsto appreciatethe sense in whichthe postulation of a single, underlyingreligious unity called "Hinduism" requires a highlyimagi- nativeact ofhistorical reconstruction. To appealto theIndian concept of Dharma as unifyingthe diversity of Hindureligious traditions is

75Wilhelm Halbfass (1988), India and Europe,p. 333. 76 WilhelmHalbfass, "The Veda and the Identity of Hinduism," in Halbfass(1991), Traditionand Reflection:Explorations in Indian Thought(State University of New YorkPress, Albany, N.Y.), p. 15. 77See Halbfass(1988), Indiaand Europe,ch. 18. 182 RichardKing mootsince Dharma is nota principlewhich is amenableto a single, universalinterpretation, being in fact appropriated in diverseways by a varietyof Indian traditions (all ofwhom tended to define the concept in termsof their own group-dynamic and identity). The appealto Dharma thereforeis highly questionable in thesame sense that an appealto the notionof theCovenant would be in establishingthat Judaism, Chris- tianityand Islam were actually sectarian offshoots of a singlereligious tradition. Despiteall ofthese problems, one mightargue that there are a numberof reasons why one shouldretain the term "Hinduism." Firstly, the termremains useful on a general,superficial and introductorylevel. Secondly,it is clearthat since the nineteenth century, movements have arisenin India whichroughly correspond to theterm as it has been understoodby Orientalists.Indeed, as I have argued,Orientalist ac- countshave themselveshad a significantrole to play in therise of suchgroups. Thus, "Hinduism" now exists in a sensein whichit cer- tainlydid notbefore the nineteenth century! Thirdly, one mightwish to retainthe term, as Lipnerdoes, withthe qualification that its radi- callypolythetic nature be understood.Such an approachwould need to be thoroughlynon-essentialist in approachand drawparticular at- tentionto theruptures and discontinuities,the criss-crossing patterns and 'familyresemblances' which are usuallysubsumed by unreflec- tiveand essentialistusage of theterm. Ferro-Luzzi, for instance, has suggestedthat the term"Hinduism" should be understoodto be a 'polythetic-prototypical'concept, polythetic because of its radically heterogenousnature, and 'prototypical'in thesense thatthe term is frequentlyused by bothWesterners and Indiansto referto a particular idealizedconstruct. Prototypical features of Hinduismfunction as sucheither because of theirhigh frequency amongst Hindus (e.g. the worshipof deitiessuch ?iva, Krsnaand Ganesa,temple worship, the practiceofpiuja etc.), or because of their prestige amongst Hindus (e.g. theso-called 'high' culture of Hindus,i.e., theBrahmanical concepts of dharma,samfara, karman, advaita, vilistidvaita etc.), which re- mainimportant normative or prototypical paradigms for contemporary Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 183

Hinduself-identity, although only actually believed in bya minority. Withregard to this latter category, Ferro-Luzzi suggests that, Eventhough only a minorityof Hindus believe in themor evenknows them they enjoythe greatest prestige both among educated Hindus and Westerners. Besides, theirinfluence upon Hindus tends to increasenow withthe spread of education [andliteracy one mightadd]. The prototypeof a Hindumight be a personwho worshipsthe above deities,visits temples, goes on a pilgrimageand believesin theabove concepts. Undoubtedly, such persons exist but they are only a minority amongstHindus.78 In myview, however, the problems deriving from the use of"Hin- duism"make it inappropriateas a termdenoting the heterogeneity of 'Hindu'religiosity in thepre-colonial era. Nevertheless, whatever one'sview on theappropriateness ofthe term "Hinduism," the aban- donmentof essentialism, rather than facilitating vagueness and disor- der,opens up thepossibility of new directions in thestudy of South Asianreligion and culture. Indeed, a properacknowledgement ofthe heterogeneityofIndian religiosity, as provided by a postcolonialcri- tiqueof homogenizing and hegemonic discourses (whether Western or Indian),also allows for the possibility of subalternresponses to dom- inantideological constructs and the cultural and political elitism that theytend to support.

Conclusions As scholarssuch as Said and RonaldInden have argued,the studyof Asian cultures in theWest has generally been characterized by an essentialismwhich posits the existence of distinctproperties, qualitiesor 'natures'which differentiate "Indian" culture from the West.Western scholars have also tendedto presupposethat such analysiswas an accurateand unproblematicrepresentation of that whichit purportedto explain,and that as educatedWesterners they werebetter placed than Indians themselves tounderstand, classify and describeIndian culture.

78G. EichingerFerro-Luzzi (1991), '"ThePolythetic-Prototype Approach to Hin- duism,"in Sontheimerand Kulke(eds.) (1991), ibid.,p. 192. 184 RichardKing

Simplisticallyspeaking, we can speakof two forms of Orientalist discourse,the first, generally antagonistic and confident in European superiority,thesecond, generally affirmative, enthusiastic and sugges- tiveof Indiansuperiority in certain key areas. Both forms of Orien- talism,however, make essentialist judgements which foster an overly simplisticand homogenous conception ofIndian culture. Nevertheless, itis importanttoacknowledge that Orientalist discourses are not uni- vocal,nor can they be simplisticallydismissed as meretools of Euro- peanimperialist ideology. Thus, the 'new' Indian intelligentsia, edu- catedin colonially established institutions, and according to European culturalstandards, appropriated theromanticist elements in Orientalist dialoguesand promoted the idea of a spirituallyadvanced and ancient religioustradition called "Hinduism," which was thereligion of the Indian'nation'. In thismanner, Western-inspired Orientalist and na- tionalistdiscourses permeated indigenous self-awareness and were ap- pliedin anti-colonial discourses by Indians themselves. However, such indigenousdiscourses remain deeply indebted to Orientalist presuppo- sitionsand have generally failed to criticize the essentialist stereotypes embodiedin suchnarratives. This rejection of British political hegemony,but from a standpointwhich still accepts many of the European presuppositionsabout Indian culture, is whatAshis Nandy has called 'thesecond colonization' of India. In thisregard, the nature of Indianpostcolonial self-identity pro- videssome support for Gadamer's suggestion that one cannoteasily escapethe normative authority of tradition,for, in opposingBritish colonialrule, Hindu nationalists did not fully transcend the presuppo- sitionsof the West, but rather legitimated Western Orientalist discourse byresponding in a mannerwhich did not fundamentally question the Orientalists'paradigm! Throughthe colonially established apparatus of the political, economicand educationalinstitutions of India,contemporary Indian self-awarenessremains deeply influenced by Western presuppositions aboutthe nature of India culture. The prime example of this being the developmentsince the nineteenth century of an indigenoussense of Indiannational identity and the construction of a single"world" re- Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 185 ligioncalled "Hinduism." This religion is nowthe cognitive site of a powerstruggle between internationally-oriented movements (such as ISKCON andthe Rdimakrsna Mission) and contemporary Hindu nationalistmovements (such as theVishwa Hindu Parishad and the RashtriyaSvayamsevak Sangh). The prize on offer is tobe ableto de- finethe 'soul' or 'essence'of Hinduism. My thesis has been that this 'essence'did not exist (at least in the sense in which Western Oriental- istsand contemporary Hindu movements have tended to represent it) untilit was invented inthe nineteenth century. Insofar as suchconcep- tionsof Indian culture and history prevail and the myth of 'Hinduism' persists,contemporary Indian identities remain subject to the influence ofa westernizingand neo-colonial (as opposedto truly postcolonial) orientalism.79

Departmentof Religious Studies RICHARDKING UniversityofStirling Stirling,Scotland, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom

79This paper is partof a largerproject examining the interfacebetween post- colonialtheory and thestudy of religion.See RichardKing (1999), Orientalismand Religion.Post-colonial Theory, India and "theMystic East" (Routledge,London and New York).