Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration Vol. 5, No. 2 / 2010 www.etmu.fi Frank Neubert Western Hindus and ‘Global Hinduism’: Discourses on Conversion to ‘Hindu Religions’, Acceptance of Converts, and Social Engagement Abstract The paper deals with the problem of (the often supposedly impossible) conversion to “Hinduism”. I start with an outline of what I call the ‘no conversion possible’ paradigm, and briefl y point to the lack of refl ection on acceptance of converts in most theories of religious conversion. Then, two exam- ples are presented: Firstly, I consider conversion to ISKCON and the discourse on the Hare Krishna movement’s Hinduness. Secondly, I give a brief outline of the global sanatana dharma movement as inaugurated by Satguru Siva Subramuniyaswami, a converted American Hindu based in Hawai’i. In the conclusion, I refl ect on (civic) social capital and engagement in global networks as a means to gain acceptance as converts to Hinduism. I argue in line with Stepick, Rey and Mahler (2009) that the religious movements’ civic engagement (in these cases engagement in favour of the Indian dia- sporic communities and of Hindus in India) provides a means for the individual, non-Indian converts to acquire the social capital that is necessary for gaining acceptance as ‘Hindus’ in certain contexts. | downloaded: 24.9.2021 Keywords: conversion, Hinduism, ISKCON, globalisation, Subramuniyaswami 1.Introduction I make reference to interactions between ISKCON and the growing Hindu diasporas in western countries. Furthermore, This paper deals with matters of conversion to ‘Hinduism’, I shall point to attempts at (re)uniting all these strands in a acceptance of converts and the mutual relations of ‘ethnic global sanatana dharma movement inaugurated, for example, Hindus’ and converts as exempli [ ed by various activities of by converted Shaivas from Hawai’i. engagement of convert organisations for Hindus both in India After a short outline of my usage of terminology (Hinduism, and the diaspora. I start from a short analysis of the assump- Hindu religions, conversion, social capital), I start with an out- tion that conversion to Hinduism is not possible, an assump- line of what I call the ‘no conversion possible’ paradigm. I tion that is nearly ubiquitous in both academic and non-aca- shall also brie \ y point to the lack of re \ ection on acceptance demic discourses on Hinduism. This assumption will be con- of converts in most theories of religious conversion. Then, https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.13939 trasted to the fact that a number of so-called new religious I will present two examples: Firstly, I will consider conver- movements of Indian origin (here: ISKCON) have tended to sion to ISKCON and the discourse on the Hare Krishna move- convert Western people to what they (have come to) consider ment’s Hinduness. Secondly, I shall give a brief outline of the to be a strand of Hinduism. By asking about discourses and global sanatana dharma movement as inaugurated by Satguru source: conditions of acceptance of such converts by ‘ethnic Hindus’, Siva Subramuniyaswami, a converted American Hindu based 56 FRANK NEUBERT on Kauai, a neighbouring island of Hawai’i. In the conclu- tial resources connected with owning a permanent network of sion, I shall re \ ect on (civic) social capital and engagement more or less institutionalized relations of acquaintance and in global networks as means to gain acceptance as converts acceptance’. Furthermore, I agree with Bourdieu (1992:61) to Hinduism. I will argue in line with Alex Stepick, Terry Rey that these resources can only be regarded as capital as long and Sarah Mahler (2009) that the religious movements’ civic as they are ‘appropriated and used as weapon and stake’ in engagement (in this case in favour of the Indian diasporic social con \ icts. Debates about acceptance of converts can be communities and of people in India) provides a means for the regarded as such con \ icts in which converts and their religious individual, non-Indian converts to acquire the social capital institutions use social capital that has often been appropriated that is necessary for gaining acceptance (as ‘Hindus’ among by means of engagement for and with ‘ethnic Hindus’. Here, ‘ethnic’ or ‘born Hindus’). Alex Stepick, Terry Rey and Sarah J. Mahler’s (2009) notion At the outset, I should brie \ y deal with my usage of the of civic social capital comes into play. It concentrates, [ rstly, terms ‘Hinduism’ (as a singular word) and ‘Hindu religions’ on social capital as owned by groups and institutions rather (in plural). It is mainly based on Kim Knott’s (2000) and than individuals only. 1 The authors focus on immigrant reli- Gavin Flood’s (1996) twofold understanding of ‘Hinduism’ as gious organisations as mediators between an assumed wider laid out in their respective introductory books. Flood (1996:8) social body (American civic society as a whole) and their says that with the word ‘Hindu’ he refers ‘not only to the con- individual members, as they “enable or deter social relation- temporary world religion, but, with the necessary quali [ ca- ships with the broader civic society”. (Stepick, Rey & Mahler tions, to the traditions which have led to its present forma- 2009:14). Civic engagement in society, they further claim, is tion’. In a similar manner, Knott (2000:152) de [ nes ‘Hindu- an important means for religious institutions to acquire and ism’ as both ‘a dynamic phenomenon of the contemporary widen social capital that is in turn pro [ table for the individ- world that develops out of the common imagination of many ual members. individuals and groups, Hindus and non-Hindus’ and as ‘the Starting from these preliminary de [ nitions, I will analyse in sum of its parts – its traditions, myths, institutions, rituals and the passages to come how the Hare Krishna movement’s and ideas – its many Hinduisms’. In order to keep the two notions the Himalayan Academy’s engagement for Hindus in India separated, I shall speak of ‘Hindu religions’ when referring to and the global Hindu diaspora extends their (civic) social cap- the above-mentioned variety of traditions, religions, etc., and ital, which in turn helps their individual members who are of ‘Hinduism’ when alluding to ‘the contemporary world reli- mostly converts to the respective Hindu religion, and (con- gion’ that has been coming into existence mainly as a discur- textually) to ‘Hinduism’ as a world religion, to be accepted as sive entity since the 19 th century, but has since become more ‘Hindus’. and more of a social reality as well. I assume that with the lat- est thrust of globalisation since the late 20 th century (Oster- hammel & Petersson, 2007), ‘Hinduism’ in this sense has also 2. The ‘no conversion possible’ paradigm gained new momentum in the form of what I call ‘global Hin- duism’. Introductions to Hinduism tend to start from two explicit, From here, we can now move to ‘conversion’ which is here basic assumptions. The [ rst of these is that there is no such most generally understood as the conscious step of an indi- thing as ‘Hinduism’. This is why a number of scholars instead vidual or a group from one ‘religion’ to another, implying, of speak of Hindu religions (Stietencron 2000) or Hindu reli- course, a strong notion of religion as somehow delineable in gious traditions. However, it must be acknowledged that the view of the converts and of the observer. Further implica- there have been important attempts at de [ ning the iden- tions of this notion will be dealt with in a later section of this tity of ‘Hinduism’ both by scholars and – more relevantly – paper. In view of the notions of Hinduism and Hindu religions by a huge number of Hindu religious movements (see e. g. as outlined above, conversion then is possible both to one of Zavos 2001 for the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries). The sec- the many Hindu religions (e.g. Gaudiya Vaishnavism or even ond assumption is that a Hindu can only be one who is born a sampradaya of the same) and to Hinduism understood as a as such, whereas conversion to ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindu reli- world religion. In the two examples to follow, both notions gions’ is not possible, the only exceptions being whole groups are present and being referred to by the converts in different (mostly ‘tribes’) that were incorporated into the body of ‘Hin- contexts. duism’ in the course of the ‘hinduisation’ or ‘sanskritisa- In addition to questions regarding the individual decision to tion’ of the Indian subcontinent and later in the course of the convert to ‘Hinduism’ or a Hindu religion, and the steps taken shuddhi ceremonies conducted by the Arya Samaj and Sana- in this direction, I shall highlight the question of who accepts tana Dhamra Movements from the 1880s through the 1920s the claims of the converts to consider themselves now part of (Zavos 2001:117-120). The reason most frequently given for their new religion, and how such acceptance is gained. I will this impossibility is the existence of the so-called ‘caste sys- argue that, to answer this question, the notions of social capi- tem’. Thus, for example, Indologist Thomas Oberlies writes tal and civic social capital can be rendered fruitful tools. For in his introduction to Hinduism that one usually belongs to the general notion of social capital, I refer to Pierre Bourdieu’s Hindu religions by birth. The caste system, he says, is an inte- (1992:63) de [ nition of it as ‘the totality of actual and poten- gral part of Hinduism by which it is legitimised and stabilised 57 FINNISH JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY AND MIGRATION VOL.