Hindus and Hinduism: Manipulation of Meanings (by Sita Ram Goel) (1 of 7)
Rajiv Varma
Manipulation of Meanings
(by Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India Publications,1993
ISBN 81-85990-09-3)
(Part 1 of 7)
During the last few years, the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism"
have been in the news as never before. All sorts of scholars, scribes,
and politicians who subscribe to what passes for Secularism in this
country, have been after these two words with hammer and tongs. The
words have been made to mean whatever happens to sound dirty or
despicable to Secularist ears. * A brand new phrase, "Hindu
fundamentalism", has been coined and floated with great fanfare
without anyone of its happy hawkers caring to consult the commonest
dictionary of the English language and finding out whether the word
"fundamentalism" can at all be tacked to the word "Hindu". The tribe
of slogan-shouters has simply forged ahead, and equated "Hindu
fundamentalism" with Nazism and Fascism. Thus, it has become a free
for all in which any word or phrase can mean anything and everything.
Swearology has scored over sanity, and lung-power over logic.
One may wonder as to why Hindus and Hinduism are being
portrayed in this puerile and perverted manner by the stalwarts of
Secularism in this country. The puzzle gets solved when one contemplates
the character of Indian Secularism, and and finds that it is no more
than a smokescreen used by the Muslim-Christian-Communist combine in
order to keep India's national society and culture at bay. And one has
to study the doctrines of Islam, Charistinaity, and Communism if one
wants to understand as to why the adherents of these ideologies
present Hindus and Hinduism the way they do. They are simply
projecting their self-images on to those whom they view as their
enemies. It is difficult for Muslims, Christians, and Communists to
believe that Hindus and Hinduism will not do to them what they have
done or plan to do to Hindus and Hinduism. If is not unoften that
civilized people become a nightmare for criminals, and lunactics get
scared by those who are sane.
A more mischievous exercise has been going on for quite some
time in the same Secularist circles. They have been not only setting
the Buddhists and the Jains apart from the Hindus, but also asserting
that Hinduism has always been at war with Buddhism and Jainism. While
Hinduism has been increasingly identified with caste discrimination,
social oppression, and brahmanical priestcraft, Buddhism and Jainism
(* We are not taking into account the recent Secularist
exerice in quoting selectively form Hindu leaders and thinkers in
order to pit a "tolerant Hinduism" against an "intolerant Hindutva".
The exercise is too puerile to deserve comment.)
have been presented as humanitarian and rationalist revolts against it
and in favour of equality and social justice.
We, therefore, think it worthwhile to review the history of the
words "Hindu" and "Hinduism", and determine what these words have
meant, at what time, and to whom. This enquiry will also reveal the
reason or the psychological process which has led our Hindus by
accident of birth to place themselves squarely on the side of Muslim
mujahids, Charistan crusaders, and Communist revolutionaries in
exhibiting downright contempt for the people and the culture of this
country.
A study of literary and epigraphic sources shows that the word
"Hindu" has appeared in our indigenous languages or popular parlance
in a comparatively recent period, keeping in view the long span of our
recorded history. We do not find this word in any indigenous language
prior to the advent of Islamic invaders from the seventh century
onwards. Even after the invaders established their rule in several
parts of the country, this word was used rather sparsely in the local
literature. Monier-Williams who compiled his famous dictionary from a
large range of Sanskrit literature, could not find any indigenous root
for this word. He says explicitly that the word is derived "from the
Persian Hindu", Dictionaries of all indigenous languages say the same.
So also the dictionaries of European languages.
The word "Hinduism" has been added to our vocabulary at a
still more recent stage. It was originally contributed by the modern
discipline of Indology, and gained wide currency in this country
simply because the leaders of our national reawakening in the second
half of the nineteenth century espoused it as expressive of our
national identity as well as our spiritual and cultural greatness.
These leaders, down to Mahatma Gandhi, never conceded that Hinduism
did not include Buddhism, or Jainism, or Sikhism, or any other way of
worship that had its roots in India.
Of course, some Nationalists have tried to trace the word
"Hindu" to saptasindhu which is mentioned in the Rigveda on several
occasions. They want the word to have an indigenous as well as an
ancient ring. The intention is understandable. But the exercise has
remained forced, if nor far-fetched. Firstly, it does not notice that
the expression used in the Rigveda is not saptasindhu but
saptasaindhvah. Secondly, it does not make it quite clear whether the
expression stands for a country, or for a people, or simply for seven
rivers in the Punjab; the expression seems to mean different things in
different contexts. Thirdly, it does not explain why the change from
"Sindhu" to "Hindu" took such a long time to surface in our indigenous
languagges. Lastly, and more singnificantly, it has not taken into
account the fact that our countrymen were never known as Hindus in
Southeast Asia in the pre-Islamic period, althoght they had a large
presence there since centuries before the birth of Chirst.
Going back to the pre-Islamic period in our own country, we
find that our ancestors shared in common a name for their homeland.
That was Bharatavarsa, which comprised at that time the present-day
Seistan province of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and
Bangiadesh. They also shared in common a name for the
spiritual-cultural complex to which they subscribed. That was Sanatana
Dharma, which covered Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, and also what are
now known as tribal religions. But there is no evidence, literary or
epigraphic, that they shared in common a name for themselves as a
people. Some puranas say that Bharatavarsa is the land of the bharati
santatih. The expression, however, is found nowhere else in the vast
literature which has come to us from those times.In any case, this
much is quite certain that our ancestors in those times did not use
the word "Hindu" for describing themselves collectively. Hiuen Tsang
who visited this country between AD 630 and 645 says that while the
word, "Shin-tu" (Chinese for "Hindu") could be heard outside our
borders, it was unknown within the country.
Nor do we have a record of how our people identified
themselves when they travelled abroad. It is not at all in doubt that
travelled a lot, and all the time. They were frequent visitors to
far-off places in all directions, by land as well as by sea. They went
out individually as well as in groups. They adventured as sailors, as
merchants, as princes, as monks, as priests, as scholars, as
craftsmen, and in several other capacities. They had established many
flourishing settlements in Southest Asia, the Pacific Islands, and
Central and South America towards the east, and in Iran, West Asia,
East and North Africa, and Europe to-wards the west. Central Asia,
China, Korea, and Japan were as familiar to them as their own
homeland. But the literature which describes their voyages, or the
epigraphs which testify to ttheir presence abroad, do not yield any
generic or national name by which they were known or made themselves
known to the people in foreign counties.
There is, therefore, no running away from the fact that the
word "Hindu" occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient
Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as
its people. They did not have to coin this word out of thin air. It
was simply their way of pronouncing the word "Sindhu", the name of the
mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to
this country from lands towards the north-west. To start with, the
word seems to have been used for provinces and the people in the
vicinity of the Sindhu. But, in due course, it was extended to cover
all parts of this country and all its people. The word also spread to
countries to the north and west of Iran. The ancient Greeks were quite
familiar with the words "Indus" and "Indoi"-their way of pronouncing
"Sindhu" and "Sindhis". The ancient Arabs, Turks (Sakas,
Kusanas,etc.), Mongolians (Hunas, Kiratas, etc.) and the Chinese were
also familiar with the word, sometimes in their own variations on it
such as "Shin-tu". It may thus be said that the word "Hindu" had
acquired a national connotation since the days of the Avesta, although
in the eyes of only the foreigners. At the same time, it may be noted
that the word was oblivious of all distinctions in terms of class, or
caste, or religion among the "Hindus" in ancient times.
There is also evidence that at some stage in their history the
ancient Iranians started using the word 'Hindu" in more than a purely
descsriptive sense. The word seems to have acquired for them a
derogatory meaning as well. Scholars are not quite certain, nor in
complete agreement, about the nature of differences that developed
between the Vedics of this country on the one hand and the Avestans of
Iran on the other. The two people had much in common, and for a long
time, in the realm of language, religion, rituals, and ethical norms.
It is surmised that the rift appeared with the rise of Zarathustra
(Zoroaster) as a religious reformer in the region Bahlika (Balkh), and
become bitter by the time the Achaeminid dynasty rose to power in
Iran. Zorastrianism became the state religion of Iran, and the
Iranians started looking down upon the Hindus as worshippers of "dev"
(Skt.deva), their word for demon. They were using the word "Ahura"
(Skt. Asura) for their own Deity.
The Iranians are known to have become more hostile to the
Hindus as Buddhism spread in Khurasan and Central Asia, and the
temples dedicated to dev were overshadowed by those dedicated to
"budd" or "but" - their name for the Buddha. By the time the Islamized
Arabs appeared on the scene, the "black-faced Hindu" had become known
to the Iranians as the but-prast (worshipper of budd or but) par
excellence. In fact, the word "Hindu' had become synonymous with the
word 'but-prast" in the Persian language which had developed out of
ancient Pehlevi. Every Hindu place of worship was now being described
as well despised as a but-khana, house of but or budd. There were
several other pejoratives which went with the word "Hindu" in Persian
parlance. They have lived in Persian lexicons down to our own times.
What is relevent in the present context is that the word "Hindu" had
acquired a religious connotation also prior to the Islamic invasions,
although in the language of only the Iranians. It way be noted again
that the Iranians show no knowledge of the fact that the worshippers
of 'dev' and 'but' subscribed to many ways of worship. For the Persians,
all Hindus were "but-prast".
kumar yelubandi
: HINDUS AND HINDUISM
: Manipulation of Meanings
: (by Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India Publications,1993
: ISBN 81-85990-09-3)
[stuff deleted]
Please...spare us the sanctimonious portrayal of "Hinduism".
It is no less egregious in the manifestation of male virtue and
female subservience than the other mainstream
religions/conduits-of-spirituality. Call it what you want
...religion
...culture
...a non-descript existence. The fact remains, there is grand
scale oppression in India, a predominantly Hindu civilization,
a highly religious civilization. Oppression of women (bride-
burning practices, female-baby abortion/infanticide, etc.);
oppression of subclasses (Untouchables, reservations, etc.);
oppression of the proactive artistic community (ie. virtually
all artistic output is reactive and caters to populous
sensibilities which are overwhelmingly influenced by religion
...just check out any Indian film and experience the saccharine
ideology); etc.
I'm not saying Hinduism is entirely to blame...just saying that
Hinduism can't be absolved from its share of blame.
For that matter, all religions are to be blamed equally as
there is no proof that any one religion is less culpable, or
more sanctified, than other religions.
In a nutshell,
RELIGION = OPPRESSION
= ROADBLOCK in the quest for real spirituality
...MHO.
Regards,
Kumar
--
Kumar Yelubandi @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Freedom of expression without freedom @@@@
(good wines = good times!) @@@@ of thought is a cretin's rage. @@@@
...in the year 2525... @@@@@@@@ - Drink up - @@@@
@@@@@ http://www.cfn.cs.dal.ca/~aa337/Profile.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@