Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf)

Copyright & reuse

Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all

content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions

for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder.

Versions of research

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version.

Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the

published version of record.

Enquiries

For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact:

researchsupport@kent.ac.uk

If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down

information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html

Citation for published version

Mahtani, Nandini Arun (2017) Swami Vivekananda Revisited. Continental Collision and the(Re)Packaging of Hindu Traditions. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,.

DOI

Link to record in KAR

http://kar.kent.ac.uk/66485/

Document Version

UNSPECIFIED

SwamiVivekanandaRevisitedContinentalCollisionandthe(Re)PackagingofHinduTraditions

ByNandiniArunMahtani

AthesissubmittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsofaDoctorofPhilosophyinTheologyandReligiousStudies

DepartmentofReligiousStudies

SchoolofEuropeanCultureandLanguages

September2017

(wordcount:99,429)

2

Abstract

ThisstudyseekstoanalyzethehowVivekananda’svoiceimpactedthe

(re)packagingofHindutraditionsinthe19thcentury.Byfirstproblematizingthe

Westernterms‘religion’and‘Hinduism’Itwillestablishtheframeworkwithinwhich

Vivekananda’sinfluencecanbeunderstood.Itusestheterm‘continentalcollision’to

demonstratehowtheEastandWestimpactedeachothertherebyconfirmingthatthe

exchangeofideaswasmultidirectionalandnotonesided.Thisstudyhighlights

Vivekananda’sIndianrootsandlocalinfluencestherebytakingintoaccountthefactthat

Vivekananda’svoicewasuniquelyIndianandnotsimplyaresultofWesternideology.

ThisvolumereliesextensivelyonSwamiVivekananda’sEnglishpublicationsthereby

allowingVivekanandatospeakforhimself.ItsurveysVivekananda’sexperiencesatthe

ParliamentofReligionsin1893andhistriumphantreturninordertodeterminehow

hewasabletocultivateahierarchywhichprivilegedAdvaitaVedantaoverallother

nativeIndiantraditions.ByhighlightingthewayVivekanandacreatedthehierarchy

amongstIndiantraditions,ahierarchythatisstillthrivinginmodernIndia,itdraws

attentiontohowthisisdetrimentaltotheintegrityoftheIndianlandmass.Using

modernscholarship,itshinesalightonthewayVivekananda’sideashavebeen

appropriatedbytheHindutvamovementwho,inturn,haveinterpretedhishierarchyto

beinsupportofcreatingaHindustateinIndia.Thus,itrevealshowthisparticularly

IndianvoiceofVivekananda’s,duetotheimmense‘continentalcollision’thatoccurred

duringtheBritishRaj,wasableto(re)packageHindutraditions;arepackagingthat

resultedinahierarchythatmustbedismantledbyHindustoday.

3

TableofContents

Chapter1-SwamiVivekananda:Introduction,‘Colonizedminds’and‘Continental

Collision’..........................................................................................................5

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5

ResourcesandMethod......................................................................................................................9

AshisNandyandthe‘colonizationofminds’...................................................................................14

ContinentalCollision........................................................................................................................25

Chapter2-TheHeathenisnottheonlyonewhoisblind…:Abriefsurveyofthetheories

of‘religion’...................................................................................................31

W.C.Smith......................................................................................................................................32

J.Z.Smith.........................................................................................................................................36

TalalAsad.........................................................................................................................................40

S.N.Balagangadhara........................................................................................................................45

RichardKing.....................................................................................................................................50

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................54

Chapter3-The‘Hinduism’Question...............................................................................56

PaulHacker......................................................................................................................................57

WilhelmHalbfass.............................................................................................................................64

DavidLorenzen................................................................................................................................70

RichardKing.....................................................................................................................................77

RomilaThapar..................................................................................................................................84

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................90

Chapter4-SwamiVivekananda:MadeinIndia.............................................................103

Averybriefbiography....................................................................................................................103

TheEarlyYears...............................................................................................................................106

TheBrahmoSamaj.........................................................................................................................114

SriParamahamsaRamakrishna......................................................................................................122

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................130

Chapter5-SwamiVivekananda:AttheParliament.......................................................132

TheSwamiGetsAcclimated...........................................................................................................135

“ResponsetoWelcome”................................................................................................................138

Religion,God,Hinduand‘Hinduism’.............................................................................................147

“PaperonHinduism”.....................................................................................................................162

Idolworshipjustified?....................................................................................................................169

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................172

Chapter6-SwamiVivekananda:AHeroReturns...........................................................175

‘ColonialMasculinity’,‘Musclesofironandnervesofsteel’.........................................................180

Reformer,Revivalist,Traditionalist,Orthodox…............................................................................191

SwamiVivekananda:Nationbuilder?............................................................................................206

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................215

4

Chapter7-SwamiVivekananda:TheTwoNarendras....................................................218

TheSanghParivar..........................................................................................................................224

Isittimetorejectthehierarchy?...................................................................................................234

TheWaroftheTextbooks..............................................................................................................251

MotherIndia:Chastebutfiery.......................................................................................................258

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................271

Bibliography..................................................................................................................281

5

SwamiVivekananda:Introduction,‘Colonizedminds’1and‘ContinentalCollision’2

Introduction

Thepurposeofthisstudyistoexaminethe‘continentalcollision’thatoccurred

duringthecolonialera,andtherolethatVivekanandaplayedinthe(re)packagingof

Hindutraditions,whennativesweresearchingforaunifyingforceintheirquestfor

independence.OneofthequestionsIwouldliketoengagewithiswhetherimported

systemsofclassificationwerepassivelyacceptedbythenatives,withoutanyanalysis

(assomescholarsseemtosuggest)or,ifinstead,theseforeignideaswereappropriated,

assimilatedandthenreconfiguredbythenativestosuittheirneedsduringtheBritish

Raj.IwillarguethattheneedsoftheWesternersweresoonsupersededbytheneedsof

thenativesintheireffort,notonlytorepresentthemselvestoanaudiencethatdidnot

sharetheirtraditionalheritage,butmoreimportantly,tofindwaystoembracetheir

pastwhilefacingtheirfuture.Thisimpliesnotapassiveacceptance,asisoften

suggested,butinsteadanactivetakeover.In,“RememberingRammohan:AnEssayon

the(Re-)emergenceofModernHinduism”BrianHatcherobservesthatthe‘founders’of

thevariousmovementsinIndia,duringcolonization,representedareasofnegotiation:

Ontheonehand,weareaccustomedtoattributingtheriseofmodernHinduismtotheagencyofanumberoffoundingfigures,menlikeRammohanRoy,KeshubChunderSen,SwamiVivekananda,orDayanandaSarasvati.Ontheotherhand,itisnowwidelyacceptedthatthereiterativeimaginingofmodernHinduismowesagreatdealtotheclassificatoryanddisciplinarymatrixofEuropeanknowledge.TosaythisisnottoadvocateareturntosimplisticmodelsofEuropean“impact”onSouthAsianreligion,butrathertoincreaseourawarenessofthecomplexityoftheintra-andinterculturalprocessesthatcontributedtotheemergenceofmodernHinduism.IfmodernHinduismreflectsthiscomplicatedprocessofreiterationandreformulation,thenitbecomesespeciallyimportantthatwe

1ThisisaconceptthatisdevelopedbyAshisNandywhichwewillinvestigateindetaillaterinthischapter.2AphrasethatIhavecoinedwhichwewillunpackinthefollowingpages.

6

thinkcarefullyabouttheroleofthoseparticularindividualsthoughtofasfounders(2006,p.52).

AsHatcherpointsout,therewereseveralnativeswhoeffectedthischange,nativeswho

couldallbeconsidered‘founders’.However,Iwouldliketonarrowmystudy

considerablybyfocusingparticularlyonSwamiVivekananda3,aHindumonkwho

acquiredgreatacclaimbothintheWest,aswellasontheIndiansubcontinent,and

whosenamestillinspiresrespectamongstHindustoday.Iwillendeavourto

demonstratethatwhereasWesternOrientalistsmayhavetriedtoimposetheirsystem

ofclassificationonthenatives,itwasnotuntiltheParliamentofReligionsinChicagoin

1893,whenVivekanandatookthislabel‘Hinduism’,andhelpedredefineit,thatwe

witnessapan-Indian,andindeedapan-globaladoptionofthisterm.

Furthermore,IwouldalsoliketoexplorethewaysinwhichVivekananda

navigatedthroughtheaccepteddefinitionsofotherlabelsandterms,theoriesand

practices,bothinIndiaandtheWest.Iwilldemonstratethatbyrepeatedlyturninghis

gazeontoWesternpracticesandideologieshecompelledhisWesternlistenersto

reassessthewaysinwhichtheyviewedtheirowntraditions.InUnifyingHinduism

(2014),AndrewNicholsonrecognizesthatthisisanissuethatneedstobeaddressedby

contemporaryscholars:

EmphasizingtheheavyinfluenceoftheEuropeanIndologistsinthemodernperiodoftenconcealssomethingelse,theinfluenceofpremodernIndiantextsandnativescholarsonthoseEuropeansthemselves.TheSaidianmodel,portrayingOrientalismasapureproductofEuropeanimperialismwithnoengagementwithAsiantextsandideologies,isuntenableinthefaceofoverwhelmingevidenceofatwo-wayculturalinfluence.NotonlyweremodernIndianstransformedbytheirBritishrulesintotea-sipping,ersatzEnglishmen.Invaryingwaysandtovaryingextents,EuropeanOrientalistsalsobecame“Orientalized”throughtheirengagementwithAsianculturesandideas(2014,p.143).

3BornNarendranathDatta(1863-1902)

7

Toaccomplishthisgoal,Iwillfirstconductanin-depthstudyoftheterms

‘religion’and‘Hinduism’sincethiswillallowustoestablishafoundationuponwhich

wecanthenjuxtaposeVivekananda’sengagementwiththeseterms,andtheimpact

theyhadonHindutraditionalideas.Indeed,Vivekananda’sinterpretationsofthese

conceptsnotonlyinfluencedthetrajectoryofideasinIndiabutsimultaneously

challengedtheframeworkusedbyhisWesterncontemporaries.Forexample,inThe

InventionofWorldReligions(2005)TomokoMasuzawaexploresthecreationofthe

category‘worldreligions’which,inturn,questionedtheverycategoryof‘religion’.As

shepointsout,oneof“theefficientcauses,sotospeak,thatfinallybroughtaboutthe

newdiscourseofworldreligions…[were]thepreconditionsandtheaftermathofthe

World’sParliamentofReligions,heldinChicago”(Masuzawa,2005,p.27).Asfaras

Vivekanandaisconcernedhowever,notonlydidheappropriatetheterm‘Hinduism’in

suchawayastomakeitalabelthatHinduscouldwearwithpride,butindoingso,he

wasalsooneofthenon-Westernvoiceswhochallengedtheverycategoryof‘religion’

andtheparameterswithinwhichitoperated.Accordingly,Vivekanandaarguedthat

‘Hinduism’couldnotbeeasilycontainedwithinthelimitedboundariesanddefinitionof

theWesternterm‘religion’.Masuzawacallsthisexchange“globalizationunderduress”

(2005,p.282)whenshehighlightstheprocesswherebycolonialsubjectswereexpected

toexpoundupontheirphilosophiesattheParliament:

Typically,itwasasymbioticprocessinwhichthenativescametoarticulatetheirownidentitybyutilizingconceptsandideasinitiallyforgedbyothers,andinwhichthenativearticulationcametofeedintotherealitystatusoftheseideasinacomplicatedway(2005,pp.282-283).AnunforeseenaspectofVivekananda’slegacyhowever,isthatwhilehehelped

problematizetheterm‘religion’,hewasalsoeventuallyinstrumentalinthecreationofa

morerestrictedidentityfor‘Hinduism’.Thiswasaby-productoftheneedfeltby

8

nationaliststouniteIndiaunderasinglebannerduringtheBritishRaj;apointthat

multiplescholarshighlightinthefollowingchapters.WhereasVivekananda’sefforts

mayhavebeennecessaryincolonialtimes,nowhisargumentsneedtobereexamined

tohelpusunderstandthelegacyofthemanwhohelpedmake‘Hinduism’anormative

termontheIndiansubcontinent.IamnotsuggestingthatVivekanandawastheonly

personresponsibleforthepopularityofthispan-Indianlabel‘Hinduism’.Rather,aswe

shalldiscussintheensuingpages,theroleheplayedwasoneofacatalyst.Hebrought

togetherforcesandideasthatwerealreadypresent,butwhichhadnotyetfully

crystallizedintothe‘Hinduism’thatinspirednationalleaderstoformaunitedfrontin

theirbattleagainsttheRaj.ItispreciselyforthisreasonthatSarvepalliRadhakrishnan

(1888-1975)reminiscesaboutthedayswhenVivekanandagaveIndiansareasonto

raisetheirheadsupinpride:

Itisthatkindofhumanistic,man-makingreligionwhichgaveuscourageinthedayswhenwewereyoung.WhenIwasastudentinoneoftheclasses,inthematriculationclassorso,thelettersofSwamiVivekanandausedtobecirculatedinmanuscriptformamongusall.Thekindofthrillwhichweenjoyed,thekindofmesmerictouchthatthosewritingsgaveus,thekindofrelianceonourownculturethatwasbeingcriticizedallaround-itisthatkindoftransformationwhichhiswritingseffectedintheyoungmenintheearlyyearsofthiscentury(Radhakrishnan,1973,p.97).ThestrongsentimentsofHindupridethatVivekanandaevokedmakeshiman

importantsubjecttostudytoday.TherearethreemainideasthatIwouldliketoexplore

throughthelensthatVivekananda’slifeandworkprovide.Firstandforemost,the

notionthatboththeEastandtheWestweredeeplyimpactedbytheexchangeofideas

thatoccurredduringthis‘continentalcollision’.Second,thatVivekanandahelped

(re)package‘Hinduism’insuchawayastoencourageahierarchyamongstHindu

philosophicalschools.Andlast,butnotleast,Iwouldliketoquestionwhetherthis

hierarchyneedstobedisassembledifmodernIndiahopestoretainitsuniqueapproach

9

todiversity.Inordertoaccomplishthisgoal,Iwilldividethisstudyintosevenchapters.

Inthischapter,Iwilloutlinemyresources,interpretAshisNandy’sideaof‘colonized

minds’andelaborateonwhatImeanby‘continentalcollision’.Inthenexttwochapters,

Iwillexplorehowtheterms‘religion’and‘Hinduism’areunpackedbyavarietyof

scholars.Thiswillgiveusaframeworkfromwhichtounderstandtheimportanceof

Vivekananda’sengagementwiththesetwoconcepts.Thiswillthenprovidemewiththe

necessarytoolstodemonstrate,inthefollowingchapter,thatnatives,likeVivekananda,

werenotpassiverecipientsofWesternideasduringtheBritishRaj,butinstead,were

usingIndiananalytictoolstoexploreWesternconceptsandtheories.Thereafter,inthe

ensuingtwochapters,IwillanalyseVivekananda’sspeeches,lecturesandwritingsto

trytodeterminewhyhebelievedthatHindutraditionalideasneededtoberepackaged

iftheyweretosurviveglobalizationandHindusweretoovercomethecultural

inferioritythatwastheresultofcolonization.Thiswill,inturn,allowustounderstand

howVivekanandawasabletohelpcreateahierarchywithinIndianphilosophicthought.

Andlast,butnotleast,inthefinalchapter,IwillexplorethewayVivekananda’sideology

hasbeentranslatedintotheidiomofHindusupremacy.Adevelopmentthathasbeen

gradual,butwhichisundeniableinthecurrentpoliticalenvironmentinIndiawiththe

risingpopularityoftheHindutvamovementoverthelastfewdecades.

ResourcesandMethod

Muchhasbeensaidabouttheaccuracyofthecompilationsandtranslations

producedbytheRamakrishnaMission,whoareresponsibleforthepublicationof

Vivekananda’swritings,whicharelargelycontainedintheeightvolumesentitledThe

10

CompleteWorksofSwamiVivekananda(2009).4Whereassomeoftheissuesthat

previousscholarshavehadwiththeseeditionsmaybewarranted,forthepurposesof

thisstudyIaminterestedinunderstanding,andanalysing,howVivekanandahimself,

andthentheRamakrishnaMathandMission,promotedthisimageandmessagethat

wentontoinfluenceboththeIndianelitesandthemasses.Itisthispersonaof

Vivekananda’s,thatinformsmyresearchsincethis‘version’ofVivekanandahasleftits

markonthewayHindusperceivetheirtraditionsandphilosophy.Consequently,Iwill

primarilyengagewiththeseEnglisheditionssincetheywere,andcontinuetobe,the

publicvoiceofVivekananda;thevoicethathelpedformulatethispan-Indianversionof

‘Hinduism’thatcontinuestosurvivetoday.Asaresult,Iwillnotbefocusingonhis

BengalimanuscriptssincethesehavealimitedviewershipandIamconvincedthathis

reach,bothduringhislifetimeandafter,wasnotregionalbutrather,asIhavealready

stated,apan-Indianphenomenon.Indeed,Ihavefoundthatevenscholarswhorelyon

theseBengalimanuscripts,findthemselvesreturningtoTheCompleteWorksto

determinehowVivekanandapresentedhisideastothepublicatlarge,sinceitwasthis

voicethatwasultimatelyheard.5IdonotmeantosuggestthattheBengalimanuscripts

arenotimportanttounderstandcertainaspectsofVivekananda’smessage;they

continuetobeavaluableresource.However,formypurposeshere,whereIwantto

tracetheimpacthismessagehadbothinIndiaandintheglobalcontext,hisEnglish

‘face’offersmeabetterlensbywhichtoanalysehismethodsandstrategy.

Furthermore,itshouldgowithoutsaying,thattherearemanybiographical

accountsofhislife,mostofwhichvarydramaticallyinstyle,formatandcontent.

4Forexample,NarasinghaSil(1997)andRajagopalChattopadhyaya(1999)bothconductanin-depthsurveyofthewaytheRamakrishnaMathandMissionandthefollowersofVivekanandadonotgiveanaccurateaccountofhislifeandworks.5Forexample,seeSil(1997)andBasu(2002).

11

Oftentimeshowever,theseworkstendtobewildlypolemic,apointthatNarasinghaP.

SilhighlightsinSwamiVivekananda:AReassessment(1997):

LikehisspiritualmentorRamakrishna,theSwamibecameacelebrityandalegendaryfigureduringhislifetime.HenceitisnotaneasytasktoseethehistoricalandhumanNarendranaththroughthehagiographicalhalothatsurroundsthepersonalityofSwamiVivekananda.Theproblemiscompoundedfurtherbyapaucityofcriticalanalysesofhischaracterandcareer.AlltheexistingbiographiesoftheSwami,includingSisterGargi’smonumentalsix-volumeNewDiscoveriesonVivekananda’sactivitiesintheWest,reaffirmthelarger-than-lifestatureofaprincely,handsome,erudite,andeloquentyoungman–theroaringVedanticlionofthefindesiècleIndia.Eventhemostrecentanthologies,basedontheresearchesofleadingIndianscholars,regardSwamijiasahypercosmologicalandultramundanesannyasi,whowasalsoaprofoundlyoriginalthinkerandsocialreformer–thepatriot-prophetofmodernIndia(1997,p.23).

Indeed,severalofthebiographiesoressaysaboutVivekananda,suchasSwami

Nikhilananda’sVivekananda:ABiography(1989)arewrittenbyVivekananda’s

followersandassuchmustbeclassifiedashagiographicalaccounts.Thesereportsbuild

Vivekanandauptobeagreatsaint,withmesmericoratoryskills,thatmovedmillionsof

people.SomeevengofurtherandequatehimtoaHindugod.Forexample,inthe

openingpagesofhisbiography,NikhilanandatriestoestablishthatVivekanandawasan

incarnationofShiva.Accordingly,hereports,“onenightshe[Bhuvaneshwari,

Vivekananda’smother]dreamtthatthissupremeDeity[Shiva]arousedHimselffrom

Hismeditationandagreedtobebornasherson”(Nikhilananda,1989,p.1).What

complicatesmattersevenfurtheristhattheRamakrishnaMissionhasalsopublished

collectedessays,incommemorativeissues,writtenbywell-knowncitizens,which

applaud,butdonotcritique,Vivekananda’sroleinIndianhistory.6Inrecentyears,some

criticalaccountshaveemergedwhichfocusonVivekananda’sshortcomingsandthe

6Forexample,seeSwamiVivekananda:CentenaryMemorialVolume(1963).Inthisvolume,the“Forward”iswrittenbyDr.SarvapaliRadhakrishnan,PresidentofIndia,andthe“Homage”iswrittenbyDr.ChakravartiRajagopalachari,formerlyGovernor-GeneralofIndia.

12

wayhemanipulatedcertain‘Hindu’ideastodevelophisownphilosophy.7Thisis

obviouslyasaconsequenceofthenumeroushagiographicalaccountsofVivekananda’s

life.Asaresult,scholarslikeSil,havewritten‘counter’biographiesinanattemptto

highlightsomeofthemisconceivedtheoriesthathavebeenpromotedbyVivekananda’s

followers;theoriesthatdonotalwaysholduptothestandardsthatareusuallysetfor

scholarlyresearch:

Mystudyseeks,interalia,tofindanswerstoanumberofquestions:WasNarendranathreallyinclinedtospiritualitysincehischildhoodmaintainedbyallhisbiographers?HowandwhendidhestudytheHinduscriptureshetaughtintheWest?WhatwerethecontentsandinterpretationsofHindureligionandculturehepropagatedabroad?Whatwashisrealattitudetowomeningeneral,andwhatwerehisexperienceswithsomeofhiswomendevoteesanddisciples?Andfinally,howshouldahistoricalevaluationofhisachievementsbereconciledwithhiscolossalimageinthestudiesthatareextant?(1997,p.25)

SilarticulatesthedifficultiesheincurredwhenwritingaboutVivekananda:

Ithasatoncebeenanexcitingandexasperatingexperiencetowriteacriticalevaluationofsuchahistoricalfigure.Siftingthechaffromthegraininalmostallthesourcesforhislifeandlogia,theauthorhasriskedresentmentoffriends,fellow-scholars,andofcourse,thedevoteesofSwamijiinthiscountryaswellasinIndia(1997,pp.11-12).

Thus,manyofthebiographiesavailableonVivekanandaareeitherwrittenbyhis

followers,andthereforemustbeconsideredhagiographical,orinstead,areresponses

orreactionstothesehagiographies.Auseful,butslightlydated,referenceforthe

publishedworksfocusingonVivekanandaisprovidedbyRajagopalChattopadhyayain

SwamiVivekanandainIndia:ACorrectiveBiography(1999).Here,Chattopadhyaya

devotesachaptertitled“ReviewsandNotesaboutImportantPublishedWorkson

SwamiVivekananda,1897-1996”which,asthenamesuggests,offersanextensive

7For example, Amiya Sen’s Swami Vivekananda (2000). Sen’s work is useful because he

presents Vivekananda in a manner which allows him to be seen as a complex individual who

continues to be difficult to analyze (2000,p.1).

13

commentaryonthewayVivekanandaisinterpretedbyvaryingscholars(1999,pp.289-

371).

BiographiesarenottheonlysecondaryliteratureavailableonSwami

Vivekananda.ThereareseveralvolumeswrittenthatdescribethewayVivekananda

impactedthenationalistmovement,theroleheplayedinIndia’sstruggleforfreedom,

hisroleasanoutspoken‘neo-Vedantin’oralternativelytheinfluencehehadonthe

developmentoftheRamakrishnaMission.Vivekananda’scareerhasbeenexaminedin

greatdetailandscholarshaverepeatedlyofferedinsightsonthetrajectoryof

Vivekananda’sshortlife.Forexample,inSwamiVivekananda’sLegacyofService

(2006b),GwilymBeckerleggeexplorestherelationshipbetweenRamakrishna,

VivekanandaandTheRamakrishnaMissionforwhomsevaorservicebecameacentral

focalpoint:

ThefindingsofthesecriticalinquirieshavechallengedtheRamakrishnamovement’sunderstandingsoftheoriginsofitsmostcharacteristicbeliefsandpractices–thepracticeofseva,itsconvictionthatRamakrishnawasanAdvaitin,andthebasisofitsfaithinVivekananda’sroleasafaithfulinterpreterofRamakrishna’smessageandpriorities(2006(b),p.2).

Ontheotherhand,PaulHackerwasmoreconcernedwiththerolethatVivekananda

playedintheIndiannationalistmovementandtheemergenceofwhatHackerclassifies

asthe‘Neo-Hindu’:

Vivekananda’spracticalapplicationofVedantismrevealstheNeo-Hinduwhoseprimaryconcernisnationalism.Hiscommitmenttoreligionwassurelygenuine,butnationalismwaspartofthisverycommitment.Thus,hewasconsistentinmakingthereligiousheritagesubservienttothetacklingofmodernnationalproblems(1995,pp.240-241).

Incontrast,TapanRaychaudhari,in“SwamiVivekananda’sConstructionofHinduism”

(1999)explorestherolethatVivekanandaplayedintheHindurevivalistmovementand

argues:

14

he[Vivekananda]rejectedwithcontemptthecentralplanksinthepropagandaofHindureaction.ThefactthathehadanequallackofregardfortheBabu-sponsoredreformshasobscuredthatactofrejection(1999,p.2).

Ihavefoundthissecondaryliteraturetobeinvaluableinhelpingmetounderstand

Vivekananda.Itiswiththeaidofthisimpressive(yetsometimesproblematic)

secondaryliteraturethatIwillattempttoanalyseVivekananda’swritings,andtherole

heplayed,inthedevelopmentoftheterm‘Hinduism’.AsItracetheideaswithwhichhe

engagedIwilldemonstratehowheusedthemtoformulatehisownideas,andthe

resultingimpact,theyhadbothinIndiaandinthediaspora.Vivekananda’srepackaging

of‘Hinduism’isoneofthemostimportantaspectsofhislegacysinceitallowsusto

understandthewaysinwhichhisepistemologyinfluencedanumberofaccepted

definitionsandworldviews.This,inturn,resultedinwhatsomemightcallahegemonic

formof‘Hinduism’thatneedstobeproblematizedincontemporarytimesifHindu

traditionsaretomaintaintheirfluidboundaries.Keepingtheseideasinmind,wecan

nowturntoAshisNandyinordertounpacksomecrucial,yetoftentimes

underestimated,aspectsofcolonization.Asweshallsee,colonizationwasnotone-

sided,norwasitlimitedtotheupperechelonofsociety.Vivekananda,andhispeers,

werealsoinapositiontoimpacttheWest;anideathatAshisNandyexploresinsome

detail.

AshisNandy8andthe‘colonizationofminds’

AshisNandy’sbookTheintimateenemy:LossandRecoveryofSelfunder

Colonialism(2006)consistsoftwoessayswhichfocusonthepsychologyofcolonization

8Nandyisascholarofpsychologyandthepoliticsofcultureandhasanextensivebodyofwork.However,forthepurposesofthisdiscussionIwillconcentrateonTheintimate

enemy:LossandRecoveryofSelfunderColonialism(2006)sinceitisarguablyhismostrecognizedcontributiontopost-colonialtheoryandtheonewhichdirectlyaddressessomeoftheissuesIwouldliketoanalyze.

15

ingeneral,andtheBritishcolonizationofIndiainparticular.However,Nandyquickly

clarifiesthatitisnotonlythepsychologyoftheso-calledmainprotagonists,i.e.theelite,

thatheisinterestedinstudyingbutalsothosewhotypicallyhavenothadaprominent

voiceinthishistoricalexchange:

IfbeatingtheWestatitsowngameisthepreferredmeansofhandlingthefeelingsofself-hatredinthemodernizednon-West,thereisalsotheWestconstructedbythesavageoutsiderwhoisneitherwillingtobeaplayernoracounterplayer(2006,p.xiii).

Consequently,Nandywarnshisreadersthathisapproachisnon-conventionaland

asserts:

Fidelitytoone’sinnerself,asonetranslates,andtoone’sinnervoice,whenonecomments,maynotmeanadherencetorealityinsomeculturesbutinsomeotherstheydo.AtleastthatisthesoledefenceIhaveformytendencytospeakoftheWestasasinglepoliticalentity,ofHinduismasIndianness,orofhistoryandChristianityasWestern.Noneofthemistruebutallthemarerealities(2006,p.xiii-xiv).

Withthisstatement,Nandyindicatestheproblematicnatureofcategories,and

classifications,especiallywhentheyareadoptedfromaliencultures.Hisprimary

concernhowever,iswiththelabels‘colonizer’and‘colonized’whichhearguesare

deceptivewhenoneexaminestheconsciousnessoftheparticipants.Indeed,onecould

arguethatNandy’smostprovocativeideaappearsintheprefaceofhisworkwhich,sets

thetoneforhissubsequentdiscussions.Hecontendsthathismainissueisnotwiththe

physicalcolonizationoflandsandpeoplesbutinsteadwith:

thesecondformofcolonization,theonewhichatleastsixgenerationsoftheThirdWorldhavelearnttoviewasaprerequisitefortheirliberation.Thiscolonialismcolonizesmindsinadditiontobodiesanditreleasesforceswithinthecolonizedsocietiestoaltertheirculturalprioritiesonceforall.Intheprocess,ithelpsgeneralizetheconceptofthemodernWestfromageographicalandtemporalentitytoapsychologicalcategory.TheWestisnoweverywhere,withintheWestandoutside;instructuresandinminds(Nandy,2006,p.xi,emphasisadded).

Accordingly,hestresses:

16

Thisisprimarilythestoryofthesecondcolonizationandresistancestoit…withacolonialismwhichsurvivesthedemiseofempires.Atonetime,thesecondcolonizationlegitimizedthefirst.Nowitisindependentofitsroots.Eventhosewhobattlethefirstcolonialismoftenguiltilyembracethesecond.Hencethereadershouldreadthefollowingpagesnotasahistorybutasacautionarytale.Theycautionusthatconventionalanti-colonialism,too,couldbeanapologiaforthecolonizationofminds(Nandy,2006,p.xi,emphasisadded).

Inthismanner,Nandyremindshisreadersthatwhereasadaptationto,and

adoptionof,theideals,languageandvaluesystemsofthecolonizersmayhavebeena

‘prerequisitefortheirliberation’beforeIndependence,thecontinuedadherencetosuch

asystemsignalsamuchdeeperrootedproblemthatneedstobeidentifiedand

addressed.However,sinceNandyisnotonlyconcernedwithdrawingattentiontothe

‘colonizedminds’oftheIndianelite,healsoturnshisattentiontothoseIndianswhohe

believeshavenotonlyresistedthiscolonizationbuthavecovertlyfoughtback.Thus,

eventhoughhedoesn’tdirectlyaffiliatehimselfwiththesubalternistscholarshipthat

beginstoemergeduringthe1980’s,hisarguments,whichadvocatefortheneglected

roleoftheindigenousclass,seemtoresonatewithsubalternistphilosophy.Indeed,one

couldarguethatNandy’spremise,withwhichhebeginshisdiscussion,isreminiscentof

GayatriChakravortySpivak’snowfamousquestion,“CantheSubalternSpeak?”(1988)9

Nandyasserts:

thecolonizedIndiansdonotremaininthesepagessimple-heartedvictimsofcolonialism:theybecomeparticipantsinamoralandcognitiveventureagainstoppression.Theymakechoices.AndtotheextenttheyhavechosentheiralternativewithintheWest,theyhavealsoevaluatedtheevidence,judgedandsentencedsomewhileacquittingothers(2006,p.xiv).Interestinglyhowever,Nandyisnotsatisfiedwiththisbinaryargumentand

takeshisanalysisonestepfurther.Consequently,heisnotonlyconcernedwiththe

9InthisessaySpivakexploresthewaysinwhichthesubalternistprojecthastriedtogiveavoicetotheseneglectedIndiansandquestionsthevalidityandeffectivenessofthisscholarship(Spivak,1988).

17

Indianswhoadjustedandaccommodatedtheirbeliefsystemtofittheneedsand

demandsoftheirChristianmasters.NorishejustinterestedintheHinduswho

continuedtopracticetheirpolytheisticritualsandpraytotheirmultipleidolsdespite

payingpassinghomagetotheideasoftheirpoliticalrulers.Instead,Nandytakesa

three-prongedapproachandpresentshisreaderswiththethirddimensionofhisview

ofcolonization.Accordingly,hecontendsthatthecolonizers,whowerevestedwiththe

powerassociatedwithempire,wereveryoftenforcedintopositions,bytheirsubjects,

thatresultedinchoiceswhichtheymaynothavemadeunderothercircumstances.

Here,weareremindedofthewesternphilosopherMichelFoucault,andhisideas

regardingthediscursivenetworkofpower.10Nandyelaboratesonthisideawhenhe

assertsthatheisnotsimplyarguingthatthecolonizedmadechoices,andhadacertain

degreeofpowertodoso,butrather,thatthispowerwastakentotheultimatelevel

whenit,inturn,colonizedtheminds,andlives,ofthecolonizersthemselves.Naturally,

thisraisesquestionsofinfluence,andimpact,becauseifwearetoacceptNandy’s

premisethenwewouldalsohavetoacknowledgeandexaminethewaythecolonized

IndianscolonizedthemindsoftheirWesternmasters.Analysingthisthree-dimensional

versionofcolonizationispreciselywhatNandysetsouttodo.

NandybeginshisargumentbyelaboratinghowIndianintellectualsreinterpreted

theirownideologyandphilosophybyusingtheyardsticksprovidedbytheircolonizers:

oncethetwosidesintheBritish-Indiancultureofpolitics,followingthefloweringofthemiddle-classBritishevangelicalspirit,begantoascribecultural

10Forexample,Foucaultasserts,“Powerrelationsarerootedinthesystemofsocialnetworks.Thisisnottosay,however,thatthereisaprimaryandfundamentalprincipleofpowerwhichdominatessocietydowntothesmallestdetail;but,takingaspointofdeparturethepossibilityofactionupontheactionofothers(whichiscoextensivewitheverysocialrelationship),multipleformsofindividualdisparity,ofobjectives,ofthegivenapplicationofpoweroverourselvesorothers,of,invaryingdegrees,partialoruniversalinstitutionalization,ofmoreorlessdeliberateorganization,onecandefinedifferentformsofpower”(1982,p.793).

18

meaningstotheBritishdomination,colonialismpropercanbesaidtohavebegun(2006,p.6,emphasisadded).

Oneofthe‘culturalmeanings’thatcametoplayabigroleinthepsychologyof

colonizationinIndiawastheideaofsexualdomination.TheBritishEmpirehad

convincedthemselvesthattheyhadbeeninvestedwithmanlyattributessuchas

“aggression,achievement,control,competitionandpower”(Nandy,2006,p.9).Thus,

thisallowedthemtorationalizethattheywerenaturallyequippedtodominateoverthe

lessaggressive,andthereforemorefeminine,colonies.11AccordingtoNandy,itwasasa

resultofthisculturalcolonizationthattheaffluentandeducatedclassofIndiansbegan

searchingforheroes,withintheirscriptures,whoemphasizedqualitiesthatwere

usuallyassociatedwithmasculinitytodemonstratethattheseattributeswerenot

absentfromtheirnativeculture.OnesuchexampleistheworkofthepoetMichael

MadhusudanDutt(1824-73)whoseclassicBengaliinterpretationMeghanadvadh

Kavya:

retellstheRamayana,turningthetraditionallysacredfiguresofRamaandLaksmanaintoweak-kneed,passive-aggressive,femininevillainsandthedemonsRavanaandhissonMeghnadintomajestic,masculine,modernheroes(Nandy,2006,p.19).AnotherpopularargumentfromWesternphilosophers,suchasG.W.Hegel,was

thatIndiancivilizationrepresentedthechildhoodofhumanityfromwhich,itwas

necessarytoprogressviathe‘rational’ideologyoftheWestthathadbeenprovidedby

colonization.12Nandyarguesthatitwasinanefforttoneutralizethisimpressionof

infantileHindutraditionsthatthescholarBankimchandraChattopadhyay(1838-94)

ignoredthebelovedstoriesofthechild-godBalgopal.Instead,Bankimchandra

11Wewillexplorethisconceptof‘effeminacy’insomedetailinChapter5.12Forexample,“TheHistoryoftheWorldtravelsfromEasttoWest,forEuropeisabsolutelytheendofHistory,Asiathebeginning”(Hegel,1901,p.163).

19

emphasizedthemanly,powerfulgod-KingKrishna,rulerofDwarka,“anormal,non-

paganmalegodwhowouldnothumiliatehisdevoteesinfrontoftheprogressive

Westerners”(Nandy,2006,p.24).NandycontendsthatmanyeliteIndians,whowere

exposedtoBritishidealsbeganidentifyingwith,andadoptingforthemselves,thevalue

systemsthatwereprizedbytheircolonialmasters.Thisabsorptionandsimulationis

whatmakesthecolonizationofmindssodangerous:

Moredangerousandpermanentaretheinnerrewardsandpunishments,thesecondarypsychologicalgainsandlossesfromsufferingandsubmissionundercolonialism.Theyarealmostalwaysunconsciousandalmostalwaysignored.Particularlystrongistheinnerresistancetorecognizingtheultimateviolencewhichcolonialismdoestoitsvictims,namelyitcreatesacultureinwhichtheruledareconstantlytemptedtofighttheirrulerswithinthepsychologicallimitssetbythelatter.Itisnotanaccidentthatthespecificvariantsoftheconceptswithwhichmanyanti-colonialmovementsinourtimeshaveworkedhaveoftenbeentheproductsoftheimperialcultureitself(Nandy,2006,p.3).

Nandythenmovesontohisnextassertionwherebyhearguesthathedoesnot

believethatallIndianssuccumbedtothiskindofcolonization.Heiskeentodraw

attentiontotheIndianswhonotonlyresistedcolonization,butinfact,pushedbackin

waysthatwerenotalwaysevident.Whatisinterestinghowever,isthattheexampleshe

citesareofIndianmenwhoarenormallyconsideredtobelongtotheintellectualelite;

suchasM.K.Gandhi(1869-1948),SriAurobindo(1872-1950)andIswarchandra

Vidyasagar(1820-1891).Naturally,thisraisesquestionsastohowtheseIndianelite

canbeconfusedwiththeunheardvoicesthatNandysaysheiskeentobringtolightin

theprefaceofthiswork,whereheunequivocallystates,“itistheunheroicIndiancoping

withthemightoftheWestIwanttoportray”(Nandy,2006,p.xiii).Whythendoes

Nandychoosetohighlighttheexperiencesandexamplesofthesewell-knownIndian

heroes?Asaresultofhischoices,onecannothelpbutquestionifNandyhasfalleninto

theverytrapthathehasbeentryingtowarnhisreadersof,thatlabelsofanykindare

noteasilyavoided.Indeed,Nandytucksawayhisemergingawareness,inafootnote,

20

wherehedescribeshisexperienceswhenhewasfirststudyingtwoIndianscientists,

thelesserknownSrinivasaRamanujanandtheacclaimedIndianheroJagdishChandra

Bose.Nandyacknowledgesthatinthefirststagesofhisanalysis,hissympathieslay

withRamanujan,whoheconsideredtobetheunderdogsincehehadnotembraced

Westernideology,incontrasttoBose,whoseemedtorepresenttheveryepitomeofthe

modernIndianman.However,Nandyhimselfadmitsthathesoongrasped:

Ramanujanwasnotespeciallyvulnerableafterall…NorwasBoseparticularlyinauthentic;theculturalproblemshedealtwithinhissciencewererealandimmediate.Andhe,too,wasvulnerable.Ashenegotiatedhiswaythroughtheruthlessworldofmodernscience,hehadtocopewiththehostilitywhichtheliminalmanalwaysarousesasopposedtotheproperalien(Nandy,2006,pp.102-103fn).

Thus,onegetstheimpressionthatNandyhimselfisstrugglingwiththerealizationthat

classification,inanycategory,isrelativetotheargumentbeingmade,andthateven

eliteslikeGandhi,areheroesonlywhenviewedfromacertainperspective.Indeed,

whenexaminedfromthecontextoftheBritishelite,whowereforcedtoengagewith

him,thenGandhihimself,couldbequalifiedasasubalternvoice!13

Infact,itisthisidea,whichNandygivesbirthto,butwhichheneverovertly

developstoitslogicalconclusion,thatturnsouttobethemostfascinatingaspectofhis

study.Unfortunatelyhowever,Nandyskirtsaroundtheedgesofthisargumentbyusing

Gandhiashisprimaryexample,ofapersonofIndianorigin,whodoesnotallowhis

mindtobecolonizedbyWesternideals.Yet,heneverexplainshowGandhifitsintothis

categoryof‘unsung’heroes.Afterall,insteadofusingGandhitomakehispointabout

theIndianmindswhocovertlyresistedcolonizationshouldn’tNandybehighlighting

instanceswheresuchresistanceemergedfrompeoplewhohedescribesasthe“savage

13AccordingtoRanajitGuha,“Theword‘subaltern’…standsforthemeaningasgivenintheConciseOxfordDictionary,thatis,‘ofinferiorrank’”(1994(b),p.vii).

21

outsiderwhoisneitherwillingtobeaplayernoracounterplayer”(2006,p.xiii)?Rather,

NandychoosestoelaborateonthewayGandhi(anIndianwhoisrarelydescribedasa

‘savage’14)refusedtoacceptthepremisethattheWestdeservedtobemimickedsinceit

hadclassifieditselfasboth‘civilized’15andmodern.AccordingtoNandy,itisworth

notingthatGandhiignoredtheWesternvaluesystemthatprizedmasculinity,by

adoptingweaving,anactivitythatwasusuallyrelegatedtowomen.Nandyalso

acknowledgesthatGandhiwassensitivetothetraditionallyacceptedideasof‘shakti’

whenhepointsoutthatGandhinaturallyassumedthattherewasa“closerconjunction

betweenpower,activismandfemininitythanbetweenpower,activismandmasculinity”

(2006,p.53).16Moreover,Gandhirecognizedthe“primacyofmaternity”(Nandy,2006,

p.54):

Insum,Gandhiwasclearinhismindthatactivismandcouragecouldbeliberatedfromaggressivenessandrecognizedasperfectlycompatiblewithwomanhood,particularlymaternity.WhetherthispositionfullynegatedtheKsatriyaworldviewornot,itcertainlynegatedtheverybasisofthecolonialculture(Nandy,2006,p.54).

Additionally,NandydrawsattentiontothefactthatGandhididnotmakeanyexcuses

forthisplayfulnessandchildlikequalitieswhichweredeemedinfantilebyhismore

‘proper’peers:

NotonlydideveryWesternizerandWesternizedIndianwhocameintouchwithGandhireferatleastoncetohischild’ssmile,hisadmirersanddetractorsdutifullyfoundhimchildlikeandchildishrespectively.His‘infantile’obstinacyandtendencytotease,his‘immature’attacksonthemodernworldanditsprops,his‘juvenile’foodfadsandsymbolslikethespinningwheel–allwereviewedasplanksofapoliticalplatformwhichdefiedconventionalideasofadulthood(2006,p.56).

14TheclosestonecouldcometosuchacategorizationwouldbeWinstonChurchillwhofamouslyreferredtoGandhiasthe‘halfnaked’fakir(TheTimes,1931).15ApopularhagiographyhasGandhiblatantlyrefusingtoevenacknowledgethattheWestwascivilized.Heissaidtohaveresponded,whenasked“whathethoughtaboutWesterncivilization”bysaying,“Ithinkitwouldbeagoodidea.”16Wewillreturntotheideasoffemininityandmaternityinthefinalchapter.

22

WhatisparticularlyperplexingwiththeseargumentsaboutGandhi,andothersNandy

makesregardingAurobindoandVidyasagar,isthatitisalmostasifheistryingtotear

downthepremisewithwhichhestartedi.e.thecolonizationofthemindsoftheIndians

whowereinclosecontactwiththeircolonizers.Asaresult,onceagain,wewitness

Nandy’sownstruggletounderstandtheIndianconsciousnesswhenhestates:

onecouldperhapssaythatinthechaoscalledIndiatheoppositeofthesisisnottheantithesisbecausetheyexcludeeachother.Thetrue‘enemy’ofthethesisisseentobeinthesynthesisbecauseitincludesthethesisandendsthelatter’sreasonforbeing.(2006,p.99).

IsNandysuggestingthattheso-calledcolonizedmindsoftheIndiansweresimplya

formofsynthesisthattherebyallowedthemtosurvive?Isn’tthistheveryantithesisof

hisopeningargumentinwhichhelamentsthemindsthathavebeencolonizedbythe

West?

Whatthenofthethirdkindofcolonization?Thisidea,whichiscompellinginand

ofitself,isonethathasbeenpreviouslyalludedtoinWesternliterature.Indeed,Nandy

himselfhighlightstheworkofGeorgeOrwellwhoseessay“ShootinganElephant”deals

withthewaycolonizingofficerswereforcedintounpleasant,andunsafe,situationsdue

totheirrolesasofficersoftheempire.NandyassertsthatOrwell:

clearlysensedthatBritishcolonialismhadcreatedthedemandfora‘motherculture’–andaproductionlineforcolonialrulers–whichalienatedthecolonizersnotonlyfromtheirpoliticalsubjectsbutalsofromtheirownselves…thatthesubjugationoftheruledalsoinvolvedthesubjugationoftheruler,thatthesubjectsinthecoloniescontrolledtheirrulersassurelyastherulerscontrolledtheirsubjects(2006,p.39).

WhatNandy’sargumentsunderscoreisthatliteraturesuchasOrwell’s,andotherslike

RudyardKiplingandOscarWilde,servedtoaccentuatetheproblematicaspectsof

colonizationforthecolonizingcountry’sgeneralpopulation:

Sinceabouttheseventeenthcentury,thehyper-masculineover-socializedaspectsofEuropeanpersonalityhadbeengraduallysupplantingtheculturaltraitswhichhadbecomeidentifiedwithfemininity,childhood,andlateron,

23

‘primitivism’.Aspartofapeasantcosmology,thesetraitshadbeenvaluedaspectsofaculturenotweddedtoachievementandproductivity.NowtheyhadtoberejectedasalientomainstreamEuropeancivilizationandprojectedontothe‘lowcultures’ofEuropeandontothenewculturesEuropeancivilizationencountered(2006,p.37).

Accordingly,Nandyarguesthatsincethecolonizersthemselveshadtoadjustand

accommodatetheirbeliefsystem,tobeabletoeffectivelyprovethattheydeservedtobe

rulers,bothinthecoloniesandbackhome,theywereinfact,tosomedegree,colonized

themselves.LetmejuststateherethatIdonotbelievethatNandyisbelittlingthe

immensehardshipsfacedbytheIndianswhowerecolonized,orthatthisargument

seekstodiminishtheextentoftheirsufferingandsacrifice.Instead,Nandyiskeenfor

hisreaderstounderstandthatnothingisasitseems,andthattheissueofcolonization

cannotbestudiedasaone-dimensionalproblem.Instead,itneedstobeunderstoodasa

complexcomponentofourhistory,ahistorythatissharedbyboththecolonizerandthe

colonized,andfromwhichneitheriseasilyliberated.

Ontheonehand,IndiansneedtobeparticularlycarefulwhenusingWestern

languages,terms,ideasandtheories.Thisisbecausetheyareoftentimesembedded

withcovertconstructsthatarelinkedtothephilosophyandtraditionsthatwere

popularintheWestwhenthey‘cameofage’duringtheEnlightenment.Without

realizingit,non-Westerntraditionsstillcontinuetotryandfindawaytomaketheir

nativecategoriesadjusttoWesternconceptswhichhavebeenacceptedasnormative

(andthereforemorevaluable)suchasmodernity,monotheismandmasculinity.Such

categoriesresideincolonizedmindsandneedtoberemovedandre-examined.Onthe

otherhand,Nandyalsowantstoargueforthevoiceofthosewhohavebeensilenced.

However,hisinabilitytopresentviableoptionsforthiscategoryleadstotheconclusion

thatNandy,thoughsympathetictothisunheardvoiceofthemasses,isunabletofinda

waytorepresentthemfaithfullyandassuch,switchesgearstoexaminethemindgames

24

playedbythecolonizedelites.Onceonegetsawayfromthefactthatthesetalesof

covertresistancearenotstoriesoftheindigenouspopulation,onerealizesthatNandyis

convincedthatmanyoftheseIndians,whosebodieswerecertainlycolonized,hadnot

allowedtheirmindstobecolonizedaswell.Nowhereisthismoreevidentthanwhen

herecountsthestoryabouttheAztecpriestswho,evenwhentheywerepressurizedby

theirconquerors,refusedtoacceptthattheirGodsweredeadandwerekilledbecause

oftheirstubbornloyaltytotheirtraditionalbeliefs(Nandy,2006,p.107).Incontrast,

accordingtoNandy,brahminpriestswouldhaveneverallowedthemselvestobekilled

inthissituation,andinstead,wouldhaveboweddowntotheChristianGod,written

beautifultreatisesandhymnsaboutJesuswhilststillholdingfirmtotheirown

traditionsandvalues.Somuchso,thateventually,“theirChristianitywouldhavelooked

afterawhiledangerouslylikeavariationonHinduism”(Nandy,2006,p.108).Similarly,

NandyquotesJ.DuncanM.Derrettwho,in1979,realizesthatIndiansneverreally

becameliketheirEnglishmasters:

Verylateinthedaythepresentwriterwokeuptowhathebelievestobethefact,namelythatIndiantraditionhasbeen‘incharge’throughout,andthatEnglishideasandEnglishways,liketheEnglishlanguage,havebeenusedforIndianpurposes.That,infact,itistheBritishwhoweremanipulated,theBritishwhowerethesillysomnambulists.MyIndianbrotherisnotabrownEnglishman,heisanIndianwhohaslearnedtomovearoundinmydrawingroom,andwillmovearoundinitsolongasitsuitshimforhisownpurposes.Andwhenheadoptsmyideashedoessotosuithimself,andretainsthemsofarandaslongasitsuitshim(ascitedinNandy,2006,p.77).

Now,whereasitmaysuitsomeIndians,andWesterners,toarguethatIndianswere

neverreallycolonized,orthattheirmindsarestillcolonized,orbetteryet,thatthey

colonizedthemindsoftheircolonizers,thetruthofthematteristhateveryaspectof

thisargumenthasmerit.Indeed,dependingontheexamplesonepresents,orthe

positiononetakes,alltheabovepremisescouldbeverified,qualifiedand/ordenied.

Theseanswersarenotfixedorsimplebutfluctuatingandcomplex.Context,purpose,

25

andperspective,allplayakeyroleintheanswersthatwearriveat.Indeed,Nandy’s

argumentsareparticularlyusefulinsheddinglightonaphenomenonthatIcall

‘continentalcollision’,anideathatIhopewilloffersomeclarityonthecomplexityof

thisdiscussion.

ContinentalCollision

AtermthatIhaveadoptedthatIthinkbestdescribestheinterchangeofideas

duringthenineteenthcenturyis‘continentalcollision’.Iamawarethat‘continental

collision’isaphrasethatisusuallyusedtodescribethegeo-scientificphenomenon

associatedwithplatetectonicswherebytwocontinents,previouslydividedbyabodyof

oceanicwater,collidetoformonelandmass.Thiscollisioncausesdisruptionsonboth

continentsattheplate’sboundaries,suchasearthquakesandvolcanoes,andthe

creationofgreatmountainranges,oceanicridgesandtrenches.Thisalsoresultsinthe

unevenfusionoflayersoflandmassfrombothcontinentalcrusts,whichcreatesuture

zones.Thesesuturezonesarecontinuouslypushingagainst,yetatthesametime

mergingwith,theircounterparts.Onecouldcomparesuchascientificgeologicalevent

withwhathappenedwhenWesternideascollidedwithEasternphilosophy.17This

intellectual‘continentalcollision’alsohassuturezones;suturezonesthatwereformed

whenthetwosidesexchangedideaswhichresultedinmoundsofupheavalthatwere,

andstillare,felteconomically,sociallyandpolitically.Thisclashoftwoaliencultures

hasresultedinideasinterminglinginwaysthathaveoftentimesmadeeachside’s

individualcontributiondifficulttodiscern.Thesesuturezones,wherecontrasting

17IamusingacreativelicenseheresinceIamawarethatthesegeologicalchangesoccurovermillionsofyearsandthatthiscomponentoftimewouldhavetobedrasticallymodifiedforthismetaphortobeappropriateinthissituation.

26

ideologiesareforcedtointeract,cancreateanidealatmospherefortheexposureand

exchangeofforeignconcepts.Itisherewhereonecouldplacefirst-responderslike

RammohanRoyandBankimchandraChattopadhyay.TheyadoptedsomeWesternideas,

butusedIndianmaterialstobuildtheshieldstheyneededtoprotectthemselvesfrom

completeannihilation,duetothisimpactbetweenthecolonizingEuropeansandthe

colonizedIndians.Thesesuturezonesbecomeareasfornegotiationandrenegotiation.

Asonemovesawayfromtheimmediatesiteofsuturezones,theeffectsofthis

collisionarenotasevidenttothenakedeyesincetheyareoccurringbelowthesurface,

wheredifferentlayersofideasaresearchingforwaystostabilizeafterthecollision.Itis

thisunseenimpactthatscholarshavedrawnattentiontoinrecentyears.18Notbecause

itcan,orshould,bestoppedbutbecauseitneedstobeunderstoodandacknowledged.

Thisistheunseen‘colonizationofminds’thatNandywarnsusagainst.Andfinally,and

perhapsmostimportantly,wehavethoseelementsthatintentionallypushbackagainst

thesesuturezonesinanefforttomaintainsomeoftheintegrityofthelandmassbefore

collision.Theyarethebulwarksagainstcompleteintegrationandtheoneswhorealize

thatcertainideascannot,andmustnot,becompromisedbecausethatwouldleadtoa

debilitatingblowandthecompletesubmissionofonelandmassundertheother.These

peoplearetheoneswhorecognize,albeitinstinctively,thatfaultlinesexist,which,if

theyarenotprotected,willresultinthedevastationoftheirnativeculture.Thisis

whereNandyplacesGandhi,andIwouldplaceVivekananda,becauseacasecanbe

madethathewasresponsibleforpushingbackinwaysthatarestillevidenttoday.

Geologicalmetaphorshavebeenusedbeforeandoneofthemostuseful

elaborationsofthistheory,regardingIndia,hasbeenputforthbyGeraldJamesLarson

18SomeoftheseideasareexploredinSubalternStudiesI:WritingsonSouthAsian

HistoryandSociety(1982).

27

inIndia’sAgonyOverReligion(1995).However,beforeembarkingonhisown

explorationLarsondrawsattentionto:

theworkofFernandBraudelandMichelFoucaultbothofwhomhavemadeuseofgeologicalmetaphorsintheirdiscussionsofworldhistory,stressing,ononelevel,theneedforabroadperspectiveovertime(lalonguedurée),whilestressing,onanotherlevel,theneedforanappreciationofbasicdiscontinuitiesinthehistoricalprocess,disruptionsandupheavalsthatbelieallattemptsatfashioningsimplecontinuities(1995,p.50).

Larson’suseofthismetaphor,however,focusesparticularlyontheIndiansubcontinent:

Indiancivilizationisviewedintermsoflayersorlevelsofsedimentationtogetherwiththejuxtapositionofdiscretetectonicplatesthatinteractwithoneanother,formingfaultlinesthatbecomefocioverlongperiodsoftimeforthereleaseofgiganticpressures,areleaseofpressuresexhibitingonoccasioncatastrophicviolenceandupheaval.Fromonepointofview,thereisgreatstabilitywhichderivesfromthepreservationofmanylayersandthepeculiarbalanceofforcesthatarelargelydistinctfromoneanotherbutneverthelessinterdependentatcertaincrucialpressurepoints.Fromanotherpointofview,thereisalwaystheriskofviolentupheavalanddissolution(1995,p.50).

Despitehisconcernwith“violentupheavalsanddissolutions”Larsonnonetheless

acknowledges:

Whatisespeciallyilluminating…isthemannerinwhicharathermessymixtureofapparentlydiscontinuouscomponentscancometogethertoformanoverallcontinuity,inthecaseofthegeologicalmetaphor,thesedimentedlayersandtectonicplatesofdiverseoriginsneverthelesscoalescingintoagiven,continuousportionofearth(1995,p.51).

WhatLarson’sdiscussionsemphasizearethemulti-layereddimensionsoftheIndian

civilizationwhichhavebeenaccrued,layerafterlayer,overtime.Indeed,onecould

arguethatthesemanylayerswerewhatmadethefoundationofIndia’scivilization

strong,therebyallowingitsindigenouspopulationtobuildonearlierlayers,insteadof

beingannihilatedbyinvadingtraditions.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,myresearch

willconcentrateontheareasofcollision,thesuturezones,andthevariedwaysinwhich

Hindusreactedandrespondedtothese‘violent’disruptions.Especiallysince,itwas

thesecollisionsthatcausedtherippleeffectsthateventuallyresultedinnewlayersof

28

ideas;ideasthatcontributetotheunique,multifacetedqualityoftheIndian

subcontinent.

WhatIhopetheterm‘continentalcollision’conveysisthatthismeetingofminds,

andcultures,wasasymbioticprocess.IdeaswerenotsimplyimposedupontheIndian

peopleinawaywhichdidnotleavethemanychoicebuttobepassiveresponders.

Instead,thecollisionthatwascausedbythisencounterreverberatedonbothsidesof

theworld.AgreatexampleofthisisthesearchforaHindutermfortheWesternideaof

‘religion’.ThelabelwasnotpassivelytranslatedintheIndiansubcontinentas

nationalist,andreligiousleadersalike,struggledtofindatermthatbestreflectedtheir

ideas.Afactthatisevidencedinthecontinuedambiguityoftermssuchas‘sanatana

dharma’orevensimply‘dharma’.Forexample,inDharmatattva(1888),whichis

writteninthestyleofadialoguebetweenateacherandhisstudent,Bankimchandra

Chattopadhyaycontends:

DISCIPLE:Butaconfusionremains.WeusedharmatomeanChristiandharma,Buddhistdharma,Vaishnavadharma,andsoon.ShouldwenotsayChristianculture,Buddhistculture,Vaishnavacultureinstead?MASTER:Youhavecreatedconfusionforyourselfbystandingtheword‘dharma’onitshead.Thewordisusedtoconveyawidevarietyofmeanings,butthesenseinwhichyouhaveuseditisnothome-grownbutmerelyamodernequivalentoftheEnglishword‘religion’.DISCIPLE:Verywell,letushearaboutreligionthen.MASTER:Whateverfor?ReligionisaWesternterm,andWesternscholarshaveturnedoutvarioustheoriesonit.Itisanothermatterthatnotoneofthesetheoriestallieswithanother.DISCIPLE:Butistherenoeternallawthatcanbefoundinallreligions?MASTER:Thereis;only,thereisnoreasontocallitreligion.Callitdharmainstead,andallyourdoubtswillbedispelled(2003,pp.46-47).

Indianswereactiveparticipants,whousedthemanylayersthatwerealreadyevidentin

theirhistory,tohelpthemmanipulatethewaytheycouldpushback,atthesuture

zones,thatwerecreatedbythisEuropeaninvasion.Indeed,whenlookedatinthisway

onecouldjustaseasilyask:howdidHindutraditionalideaschangethewayWestern

29

traditionscametoviewthemselves?HowdidthediscoveryofHindutraditionalnorms

changethemeaningof‘religion’intheWest?Andperhapsmostimportantlyforthe

purposesofthisstudy;howdidVivekananda,whogrewupundertheshadowofBritish

colonization,challengetheWesternideologythatthreatenedtosubsumehistraditions

inthis‘continentalcollision’?WhatmakesthisanalysisofVivekanandaparticularly

importanttodayisthefactthat,untilrecently,scholarshipprimarilyfocusedonthe

impactthatWesternideashavehadontheemergenceofthisnormativelabel

‘Hinduism’.RichardKingarguesthatthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatscholarsare

notsensitivetotherolethatIndiansplayedinthedevelopmentofthisconcept:

Muchoftheworkexploringthecolonialemergenceoftheconceptof“Hinduism”inthe1990sattemptstohighlighttheroleoforientalistinfluencesratherthandenyindigenousagency(2006,p.709).Whereasthismaybetrueincertaincases,thefactisthatoveralltherehasbeena

muchlargeremphasisonhowWesternideologyinfluencedIndianideas.Accordingly,

VivekanandaoffersusanopportunitytoexaminethewayanauthenticIndianvoicenot

onlyimpactedthislabel‘Hinduism’butalsotheterm‘religion’.Iamnotsuggestingthat

Iamthefirstpersontoaddressthisdiscussion.Instead,Iamattemptingtobuildupon

argumentspresentedbyavastarrayofscholars,manyofwhoseargumentswewill

encounterintheensuingpages.Theseacademicshavealreadywrittenaboutsomeof

thewaysIndianstookanactiveroleintheconstructionoftheirownidentitiesdespite

colonization.However,tothebestofmyknowledge,scholarshavenotyetanalysed,in

detail,therolethatVivekanandaplayedinassuringthatthis‘continentalcollision’did

notresultinalossthatwouldhavebeendevastatingforthesurvivalofHindutraditions

andphilosophicalideas.HopefullythisstudywillshedsomelightonVivekananda’s

contributiontothecreationofapan-IndianHinduidentitythatreliedasmuchas,ifnot

moreso,onitsIndianheritageasitdidonitscolonizers’terminology.Onlythenwillwe

30

beabletounderstandhowthisnativevoicecontinuestoimpacttheHindunationalist

movementinIndiatoday.Andwhyitisimperativethatweshedsomelightonhow

someofhisideas,likethecreationofahierarchy,whichmayhavebeennecessaryfor

nation-building,couldprovetobedetrimentaltothepreservationofthedynamic

Indianlandscapeincontemporarytimes.

31

TheHeathenisnottheonlyonewhoisblind…(Balagangadhara,2005)19Abriefsurveyofthetheoriesof‘religion’

Itisnotoftenthatwepausetothinkaboutthedeeperimplicationsthatare

embeddedinthewordsthatweusedaily.Veryoften,thesewordshaveaccumulateda

varietyofsignificances,overcenturiesofusage,thatarenotalwaysapparent.Infact,it

couldbearguedthatsuchattentiontolanguageisusuallyconfinedwithinthewallsof

institutionsofhigherlearning,wherestudentsareoccasionallyencouragedtoanalyse

thelanguagetheyuse,sothattheymightrecognizehowwordscanmanipulatetheway

weinterprettheworldaroundus.Itisanawarenessofthisunseeninfluence,that

languagehasuponthewayweconstructourworld,thatMichelFoucaultseemstobe

referringtowhenhedeclares“knowledgeispower.”Inaseriesofinterviewsconducted

inthe1970’s,Foucaultwarnshisreaders:

Theexerciseofpowerperpetuallycreatesknowledgeandconversely,knowledgeconstantlyinduceseffectsofpower…Knowledgeandpowerareintegratedwithoneanotherandthereisnopointofdreamingofatimewhenknowledgewillceasetodependonpower…Itisnotpossibleforpowertobeexercisedwithoutknowledge,itisimpossibleforknowledgenottoengenderpower(1980,p.52).

Consequently,ithasbecomeacommonpractice,amongstlecturersofundergraduate

religiousstudiescourses,tobeginthesemesterbyaskingstudentstodefinetheterm

‘religion’.Especiallysince,theyunderstandthatthisattentiontothepowerof

definitionscannotbetakenlightlywiththisterm.Lecturersarerarelysurprisedwhen

theensuingdiscussions,andarguments,areusuallyheatedandresultinsuchawide

rangeofdefinitions,thatthestudentsthemselvesarebewilderedbytheirinabilityto

collectivelydefineawordtheyhaveusedineverydaylanguageformostoftheirlives.

19ThisisaplayonthetitleofS.N.Balagangadhara’sbook.

32

Thefactthatnoconclusivedefinitioncanbeestablishedforthismostcommonly

usedterm,seemslikeanappropriateplacetostartthepresentdiscussion.Bysurveying

thewaymodernhistoriansofreligion20haveendeavouredtoinvestigatethe

boundariesofthistermwewillhaveamultifacetedunderstandingofthemany

‘genealogiesofreligion’21;anecessarytoolincurrenttimes.Notonlywillthisallowme

tousethistermwitharelativelyadequaterecognitionofitsvariantsignificances,butit

willalsopermitmetodeterminewhereI‘stand’inthiscontinuingdebate.22And,most

importantly,byconductinganin-depthexplorationofthecontemporaryusageofthis

termwewillbebetterequippedtoperceive,inthefollowingchapters,how

VivekanandaengagedwiththisWesternconcept,whataspectsherejectedandwhich

componentsheembraced.This,inturn,willallowustounderstandthatVivekananda

wasnotsimplyrespondingtohiscolonizers’ideasbutinstead,wasanactiveparticipant

inadialoguethatstillragesontoday.

W.C.Smith

W.C.Smith’sTheMeaningandEndofReligion(1963)isconsideredtobeaclassic

forstudentsinterestedinthestudyofcomparativereligions.(Asad2001,p.205).Hisis

oneoftheearliestcontemporaryvoicestohaveemphasizedtheinherentproblemswith

theterm‘religion’,andhowthiswordhad,andcontinuestohave,aparticularly

20Thisis,bynomeans,anexhaustivesurveyofthescholarswhohavespokenonthissubject.Rather,thesearesomeofthevoiceswhohavebeeninfluentialinmyownunderstandingofthesearguments.21AccordingtoFoucault,thereisnotjustonegenealogy,ofanyideaorconcept,thatcanbetracedthroughhistory.Rather,therearemanygenealogies,whichcompetedependingonthediscursiveelementspresentduringtheirevolution.(1980,p.117).22J.Z.Smith,makestheargumentthatahistorianhas‘noplacetostand’(1978).Thissuggeststhatacademicsdonot,andshouldnot,haveanagendawhentheystudy‘religion’.Unfortunatelyhowever,thisisrarelytruesincescholarscomewiththeirowncontextualbiasthatnaturallyinfluencesthe‘stand’theytake.

33

Westernbias.VoiceslikeSmith’s,eventuallyforcedotherscholarsof‘religion’topause,

andtakenotethattheywereusingWesternlinguistictoolstounderstandthenon-

Westernworld.Smithdrawsattentiontothefactthatthewordsthatacademicsutilize

mustbecarefullychosenandunderstoodforthemtobeusedappropriatelyin

contemporarytimes:

Tounderstandtheworld,andourselves,itishelpfulifwebecomecriticalofthetermsandconceptsthatweareusing.Further,tounderstandotherpeopleandotherages,itisrequisitethatwedonotpresumeuncriticallythattheirmeaningsforwordsarethesameasours.Amaturehistoryofideasmustrestoncarefulscrutinyofnewwords,andalsoofnewdevelopmentsinmeaningsofoldwords.Onceattained,itmayfurtherourrealisticunderstandingoftheworlditself…Wemustbealertlest,outofcasualnessorlackofhistoricalperception,wefailtonoticechangesinwordusagethatmaybequitesignificant,sothatwereadbackintothepastwhatareactuallyourinnovations(1963,pp.16-17).

AccordingtoSmith,‘religion’isatermwhoseequivalentisnoteasilyfoundinmany

languages.Nevertheless,colonizedcountrieswithalternatetraditions,havebeenforced

tocompensateforthisapparentlackintheirvocabularybycreatingnewterms,or

utilizingwordswithsomewhatsimilaridentities,tofillthisvoid.Consequently,Smith

articulates,indetail,themanywaysthistermhasbeen(mis)appropriated,andapplied,

notonlytotheso-called‘primitive’peopleofNorthandSouthAmerica,butalsotothe

evidently‘sophisticated’societiesofEgypt,Iran,IndiaandChina;allofwhomlackan

equivalenttermfortheword‘religion’(1963,pp.54-55).

WhatisimportanttonoteisthatSmithisnotarguingagainsttheexistenceof

worldviewswhichincludegods,ritualsandtraditionsinthese‘other’partsoftheworld.

Rather,heisdenyingthatthereissomekindof‘essential’religiouscharacteristicthat

existsinthesediversecommunities,whichcanthenbeisolatedbyscholarsinorderfor

themtobestudied.Smithasserts,“essencesdonothaveahistory.Essencesdonot

change.Yetitisanobservableandimportantfactthatwhathavebeencalledreligions

do,inhistory,change”(1963,pp.143-144).Hetracesthehistoryofthistermtosupport

34

hisclaimwherebyhearguesthattheterm‘religion’hasadistinctivelyWestern(and

Christian)23biasanddemonstrateshowthiswordhasevolvedovercenturies.First,at

thehandsofGreek,RomanandChristianphilosophers,andthenviathediscoveriesof

Westernexplorersandinvaders.This,heargues,beliestheassumptionthat‘religion’is

alabelthatcanbeapplieduniversallytoothercultureswithoutprejudice:

Theconcept‘Religion’,then,intheWesthasevolved.Itsevolutionhasincludedlong-rangedevelopmentthatwemaytermaprocessofreification:mentallymakingreligionintoathing,graduallycomingtoconceiveitasanobjectivesystematicentity(Smith,1963,p.51).ThisisespeciallyimportantwhenonecontrastsSmith’sworkwithscholarsfrom

thelatterhalfofthe19thcenturysuchasMaxMuller,oneofthefoundingfathersofthe

‘scienceofreligion’.Mulleradvocatedfor,andsucceededin,establishingaseparate

disciplinewiththisname,whichwassupposedtobebasedonrationalthought.

Ironicallyhowever,thisisthesameperson,whoinhisfirstlectureonthe‘Scienceof

Religions’,in1870,sawthenecessityof‘selling’hisideastotheChristianpublicwho

neededtobeconvincedthathewasnottryingtounderminethesupremacyof

Christianity(Muller,2002,p.118).Incontrast,Smithconteststheessentialqualityof

‘religion’byusingadoubleedgedsword.Ontheonehand,hemakesacaseagainsta

Christo-centricreifiedideaof‘religion’thatcanbeusedtoevaluatetraditionsacrossthe

globe.Ontheotherhand,hechallengestheessentialcharacteristicofany‘religion’,

Christianity,Islam,Hinduism,etc.becausethesebeliefsystemshavenotremained

static,butrather,haveevolvedovertimeinsuchawaythatevenfollowersofthesame

traditionrarelyunderstandthemidentically.

23Iamawarethatusingthelabel‘Western’inthesingularisproblematicsincetherearenumerousWesternsocieties,allofwhicharenothomogenous.Similarly,Iamalsoawarethattherearemany‘Christianities’whosephilosophiesarenotconsistent.However,forthepurposesofthisargument,itisthemostefficientwaytodescribetheseentitiessincetheirinfluenceonthissubjecthasbeenrelativelyuniform.

35

Whatisinterestinghowever,isthatwhereasSmithrecognizestheinherent

problemswiththislabel,nevertheless,heisnotwillingtorelinquishtheideasthatare

associatedwithit.Indeed,notunlikeMirceaEliade,onegetstheimpressionthatSmith

wasalsoadvocatingforakindofhomoreligiosus:

wemustnotethatwhatwecall‘religion’isofmuchwiderprevalenceandofmuchlongerstandingthanistheuseofthisterm,orindeedofanyotherterm,todesignateit.Ineveryhumancommunityonearthtoday,thereexistssomethingthatwe,assophisticatedobservers,maytermreligion,orareligion.Andweareabletoseeitineachcaseasthelatestdevelopmentinacontinuoustraditionthatgoesback,wecannowaffirm,foratleastonehundredthousandyears(Smith,1963,p.18).

Consequently,Smithsurmisesthatthebestwaytoretaintheideasassociatedwith

‘religion’isbydiscardingthistermandreplacingit,bywhatheconsiderstobe,

alternative,non-conflictivelabels.Assuch,Smithadvocatesfortheuseof‘cumulative

traditions’and‘faith’insteadof‘religion’becausehebelievesthesewordswillbetter

representthehistoryandevolutionofthediversebeliefsystemsthathavedeveloped

acrosstheworld.Accordingly,Smithdefinestheseterms:

By‘faith’Imeanpersonalfaith…Forthemomentletitstandforaninnerreligiousexperienceorinvolvementofaparticularperson:theimpingementonhimofthetranscendent,putativeorreal.By‘cumulativetradition’Imeantheentiremassofovertobjectivedatathatconstitutethehistoricaldeposit,asitwere,ofthepastreligiouslifeofthecommunityinquestion:temples,scriptures,theologicalsystems,dancepatterns,legalandothersocialinstitutions,conventions,moralcodes,myths,andsoon:anythingthatcanbeandistransmittedfromoneperson,onegeneration,toanother,andthatanhistoriancanobserve(1963,pp.156-157).

TheissueswiththesereplacementsthatSmithputsfortharesurprisinglyobvious.On

theonehand,itcouldbedebatedthatanysearchfora‘universal’labelisfilledwith

pitfallssincethiswillnaturallyrequireittohavesome‘essential’characteristics;which

isthecruxofSmith’sconcernwiththeterm‘religion’inthefirstplace!Furthermore,if

onedecidedtoincludeeveryaspectofsocietyintoadefinitionof‘cumulativetraditions’

thenwoulditnotbeeasiertosimplysticktocategoriessuchashistoryand

36

anthropology?Whydoweneedaseparatedesignationcalled‘cumulativetraditions’?

Ontheotherhand,theterm‘faith’isaverycommonChristianideaandonecannothelp

butbetakenabackbySmith’snaivetéatnotrealizingthatthistermwillalsocomewith

itsownsetofWestern(andChristian)baggage.ItisevidentthatSmithdoesnotrealize

thattheconcepts‘faith’and‘cumulativetraditions’alsohavethepotentialtotakeon

‘reifiedessential’characteristicsjustliketheterm‘religion’whichhewantsusto

discard.ThisseemstoindicatethatSmithwasstilllookingforawayhecould

homogenizesometermsinordertomakethemapplicableglobally.Consideringthat

thisseemstobewhathewasarguingagainstinthefirstplace,hisworkleavesuswith

morequestionsthananswers.Indeed,ultimatelyonegetstheimpressionthatwhereas

Smithwasabletoseetheproblematicnatureofthestudyof‘religion’,hewas,inthe

end,unabletomakeacleanbreakfromtheuseofthelinguistictoolsthathehadgrown

accustomedtousing.

J.Z.Smith

Perhapsitisbecausetherewassuchaneedforacademicstomakebold

statementsandtakearadicalstance,toseparatethemselvesfromscholarssuchas

Smith,MullerandEliade,thatthecelebratedscholar,J.Z.Smith,makesthis,oftquoted,

statementinImaginingReligion:FromBabylontoJonestown(1982):

whilethereisastaggeringamountofdata,ofphenomena,ofhumanexperiencesandexpressionsthatmightbecharacterizedinonecultureoranother,byonecriterionoranother,asreligious–thereisnodataforreligion.Religionissolelythecreationofthescholar’sstudy.Itiscreatedforthescholar’sanalyticpurposesbyhisimaginativeactsofcomparisonandgeneralization.Religionhasnoindependentexistenceapartfromtheacademy.Forthisreason,thestudentofreligion,andmostparticularlythehistorianofreligion,mustberelentlesslyself-conscious.Indeedthisself-consciousnessconstituteshisprimaryexpertise,hisforemostobjectofstudy(1982,p.11,emphasisinoriginal).

37

ItisobviousthatJ.Z.Smithischallengingtherulesofthisdiscussionsinceheiscalling

forreligiousstudiesscholarstocompletelyseparatethemselvesfromarguments,that

areevenremotelyinfluencedbytheideathat‘religion’isasensitivecategory,and

thereforemustbetreatedwithparticularcare.Anargumentthatiseloquentlyconveyed

byW.C.Smithwhenhestates,“[i]thasbeensaidthatonemusttreadsoftlyhere,forone

istreadingonmen’sdreams”(1963,p.5).Instead,J.Z.Smitharguesthat‘religion’must

betreatedlikeanyotheracademiccategorythathasbeencreatedforscholarsto

examineacertainaspectofhumansociety.Whatisinterestinghowever,isthatJ.Z.

Smith,likeW.C.Smith,isalsoarguingagainstany‘essential’qualityof‘religion’.

Tosupporthisideas,intheessay“Religion,Religions,Religious”(1998)J.Z.

SmithreliesonDavidHume’sdiscussionintheNaturalHistoryofReligion(1749-51).

Humearguesagainsttheinnatequalityof‘religion’onthesimplepremisethatnotwo

‘religions’areidenticallydescribedbytheirfollowers.Despitethewidespreadusageof

theterm‘religion’,nevertheless,Humecontendsthat‘religion’isnotanoriginalaspect

ofnature(Smith,J.Z.,1998,p.274).ByusingargumentslikeHume’s,whichcontestthe

validityoftheideathat‘religion’is“anoriginalinstinctorprimaryimpressionof

nature”(ascitedbySmith,J.Z.,1998,p.274)andJamesH.Lueba’s(1912)contention

thattherearemorethanfiftydefinitionsfortheterm‘religion’J.Z.Smithassertsthat

‘religion’“isasecond-ordergenericconcept”(1998,p.281).Assuch,heargues,“there

maywellbeaprimaryandvalidhumanexperiencethatgivesrisetothesecondary

religiousinterpretations,butthetruthoftheexperienceisnoguaranteeofthevalidity

oftheinterpretation”(Smith,J.Z.,1998,p.274).Accordingly,oneofhisprincipal

concernsisthewaythisterm,andtheideasattachedtoit,aretreateddifferentlythan

anyotherdisciplineintheacademy.Indeed,heseemstobediametricallyopposedto

W.C.Smithwhospendsaconsiderableamountoftimedefendingtheviewsof

38

theologiansandpractitioners,whohebelievesarenotgiventheirdueplaceinthis

discourse.Incontrast,J.Z.Smitharguesthattheway‘religion’isunderstoodand

categorizedhasalottodowiththepowerdynamicsofsociety:

thedistinctionofreligion,hasusuallybeenattemptedinamonotheisticfashion.Scholarshaveengagedinthequestfortheuniqueanddefinitivesinequanon,the“thatwithoutwhich”religionwouldnotbereligionbutratheraninstanceofsomethingelse.Inthemain,theresultsofthisenterprisehavenotbeenconvincing;theyhavefailedtoachieveconsensus.Theyhavebeenpoorlyformulatedandviolatetheordinarycanonsofdefinition.Butthisislessdisturbingthanthefactthatthepresuppositionsofthemonotheisticenterprisehavebeendeliberatelytamperedwithforapologeticreasons(1982,p.5).

Instead,J.Z.Smithadvocatesthathistoriansof‘religion’adoptapolytheticapproachif

theywanttoarriveatamorecomplexunderstandingofthewaysinwhichreligious

ideashavebeeninfluencedbyvariouspowerstructures.Hebelievesthatonlywhen

scholarsdevelopamoreefficientsystemofcategorization,whichallowsformultiple

pointsofidentificationwilltheseideasbeapplicabletoawiderrangeofreligious

traditions.Hearguesthiscanbeachievedwiththepolytheticmethod,whichheadopts

fromastudyontaxonomydonein1963:

[a]modeofclassificationwhichsurrenderedtheideaofperfect,uniquesingledifferentia–ataxonomywhichretainedthenotionofnecessarybutabandonedthenotionofsufficientcriteriaforadmissiontoaclass.Inthisnewmode,aclassisdefinedasconsistingofasetofproperties,eachindividualmemberoftheclasstopossess“alarge(butunspecified)numberoftheseproperties,witheachpropertytobepossessedbya“largenumber”ofindividualsintheclass,butnosinglepropertytobepossessedbyeverymemberintheclass.Iftheclasscontainedalargepopulationitwouldbepossibletoarrangethemaccordingtothepropertiestheypossessedincommoninsuchawaythateachindividualwouldmostcloselyresembleitsnearestneighborandleastcloselyresembleitsfarthest.Theprobabilitywouldbehighthattheindividualsateitherextremewouldscarcelyresembleoneanother,thatis,theymayhavenoneofthepropertiesofthesetincommon(Smith,J.Z.,1982,p.4).

However,accordingtoJ.Z.Smith:

thiswouldhavetoeschewtheimpossiblesuppositionofacommonancestor,replacingitbyamodelofmultilinearevolution.ButIknowofnosuchattempt…Iknowofnoexamplesofattemptsatthepolytheticclassificationofreligionsor

39

religiousphenomena.Itisinthisareathatthemostfruitfulfutureworkwillbedone(1982,p.8).

J.Z.Smithisalsoarguingagainsttheideaofan‘essential’definitionof‘religion’.

Nonetheless,unlikeW.C.Smith,heisnotadvocatingforthereplacementofthiswordby

othertermsbutratherachangeinstrategyandmethodologyinthestudyofthese

‘religions’.ThistiesinneatlywithhisargumentthatLeubawasnotactuallylamenting

thatthereweresomanydefinitionsof‘religion’butratherthat“themoralofLeubais

notthatreligioncannotbedefined,butthatitcanbedefined,withgreaterorlesser

success,morethanfiftyways”(Smith,J.Z.,1998,p.281).

AccordingtoJ.Z.Smith,theonlymeanstogetawayfromamonothetic,and

therefore‘essential’,categorizationof‘religion’istoavoidlookingforsomethingthat

makesituniqueandspecial.Instead,hebelievesthatthebestmethodforastudentto

approachthestudyof‘religion’isbyfindingawaytounderstandandappreciatethe

commonalities:

Doesonefocusonthosethingswhich“excitehorrorandmakemenstare,”ordoesoneconcentrateon“commonstories”on“whatweseeinEuropeeveryday”?Itisatensionbetweenreligionimaginedasanexoticcategoryofhumanexperienceandexpression,andreligionimaginedasanordinarycategoryofhumanexpressionandactivity.Ithasbeenmycontinuedpresuppositionthatthelatterchoiceforimaginationisthemoreproductiveforthedevelopmentofhistoryofreligionasanacademicenterprise(Smith,J.Z.,1982,pp.xii-xiii,emphasisinoriginal).

WhereasthereismuchtobecommendedinJ.Z.Smith’sapproach,whichquestionsthe

way‘religion’andreligiousstudieshavebeencategorized,lamentablyhedoesnot

actuallyarticulatehowthispolytheticapproachofhiswouldwork.Andperhapsmost

importantly,hedoesnotspecifyhowsucha‘setofproperties’wouldbeidentified,nor

whichlinguistictoolsscholarswouldusetocreatetheseclassifications.Wouldeach

traditionusetheirownsetofclassifications?Whatlanguagewouldtheybein?Who

woulddecidewhich‘terms’weretobeutilized?Ifwedonotusethesameterminology,

40

thenhowwillwemakeourselvesunderstoodby‘others’?Afterall,forustocelebrate

the‘commonstories’dowenotfirstneedtodecideifthereisacommonlanguagethat

canbespoken?Andmostimportantly,whoselanguageisthatgoingtobe?Istherea

languagethatwecansharewhosewordsarenotalreadyembeddedwithmeaning?

TalalAsad

Thequestionsmentionedabovearesimilartotheonesthattheanthropologist,

TalalAsad,seemstobeaskinginhiscollectionofessaysGenealogiesofReligion:

DisciplineandReasonsofPowerinChristianityandIslam(1993).Hebeginsbynoting

thatitisstillconsideredimportantfornon-Westernstudentstostudythe‘religion’and

philosophyoftheWestsinceitispresumedthattheseideasmusthavedirectly

influencednon-Westernthought.However,henotesthatontheotherhand,Western

scholarsandstudentsdonotalwaysfeelthesameneed:

theassumptionthatWesternhistoryhashadanoverridingimportance–forgoodorill–inthemakingofthemodernworld…Ithassometimesbeennotedthatpeoplesfromthenon-WesterncountriesfeelobligedtoreadthehistoryoftheWest(butnoteachother’shistories)andthatWesternersinturndonotfeelthesameneedtostudynon-Westernhistories.ThehistoryofmodernWesternthought,forexample,canbe(andis)writtenonitsown,butnotsothehistoryofcontemporaryArabthought(Asad,1993,p.1).

Keepingthisinmind,itisnotsurprisingthatAsadalsospeaksoutagainstthe

essentialistdefinitionof‘religion’becauseitisevidenttohimthatthisessentialist

structurecannotbeappliedtoall‘religions’:

Myargumentisthattherecannotbeauniversaldefinitionofreligion,notonlybecauseitsconstituentelementsandrelationshipsarehistoricallyspecific,butbecausethatdefinitionisitselfthehistoricalproductofdiscursiveprocesses(1993,p.29).

41

OneofthestrategiesthatAsadusestoconvincehisreadersofthispremiseistodissect

CliffordGeertz’swell-knowndefinitionof‘religion’andarticulatethereasonswhythis

emphasisonsymbolismcannotbeusedwithoutprejudice(Asad,1993,p.29).

WhereasAsad’sargumentsaboutGeertzareinteresting,itishisemphasisonthe

problemswithpost-Enlightenmentideasofsecularsocietythataremostcompelling.To

beginwith,heechoesFoucault’sargumentsaboutpowerwhenhestates“Iwantto

examinethewaysinwhichthetheoreticalsearchforanessenceofreligioninvitesusto

separateitconceptuallyfromthedomainofpower”(Asad,1993,p.29).Additionally,he

alsohighlightsthefactthatWesternsociety’sinclinationtolimit‘religion’totheprivate

spherehasresultedinasituationwherebyreligiousidentitiesthatdonotnecessarily

limitthemselvestotheso-called‘private’sphereareconsideredproblematicand

dangerous.Hearguesthatthiseffort,inandofitself,tocorral‘religion’intheprivate

sphereisapowerplaysinceitonlyallowsforaWestern,post-Enlightenment

understandingofthespacethat‘religion’mustoccupy,whichdoesnotalwaysresonate

withreligiousideasinotherpartsoftheworld.24Thisinsistence,ofmostmodern

Westernnations,toseparate‘religion’fromstate,accordingtoAsad,justservesto

disguisethefactthatthesecularstatehasmanagedtoconveytheimpressionthatits

philosophyisunbiased,withoutprejudiceanduniversal,incomparisontothosenations

thatallow‘religion’toplayamoresignificantroleinpublicsociety:

Perhapsthefeelingthatsecularargumentsarerationallysuperiortoreligiousonesisbasedonthebeliefthatreligiousconvictionsarethemorerigid.Butthereisnodecisiveevidenceforthinkingthis.Religioustraditionshaveundergonethemostradicaltransformationsovertime.Divinetextsmaybeunalterable,buttheingenuitiesofhumaninterpretationsareendless–quiteapartfromthefactthatsomeoftheconditionsofhumandoubtandcertaintyarenotoriouslyinaccessibletoconsciousargument.Fanaticscomeinallshapesandsizesamong

24Thisisanissuethatwewillexploreinthefinalchapter,sincetheHindunationalistmovementisquitevocalabout‘Hinduism’beingthefoundationuponwhichIndiawasbuilt.

42

skepticsandbelieversalike–sodoindividualsoftolerantdisposition.Asfortheclaimthatamongthereligious,coercionreplacespersuasiveargument,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatweowethemostterribleexamplesofcoercioninmoderntimestoseculartotalitarianregimes–NazismandStalinism.Thepointthatmattersintheend,surely,isnotthejustificationthatisused(whetheritbesupernaturalorworldly)butthebehaviorthatisjustified.Onthispoint,itmustbesaidthattheruthlessnessofsecularpracticeyieldsnothingtotheferocityofreligious(Asad,1993,pp.235-236).

Identifyingwhoisspeaking,andforwhomtheyarespeaking,areAsad’smain

concernsandherepeatedlydemonstrateshowdifferentpowerstructuresimpose,and

coerce,thosearoundthem.Interestingly,thisargumentcouldbeaugmentedbythose

madebytheAmericanscholarRobertN.Bellahwhostatesthatthebirthofthenation

createdsomethingcalledacivil‘religion’which,inturn,produceditsownsetof

symbolsandrituals.BellahcontendsthattheAmericanConstitution,themany

monumentscreatedinthememoryoftheleadersofthisnation,andritualslikethe

PledgeofAllegiance,canallbeinterpretedassymbolsofacivil‘religion’.“America[is]

thepromisedland.Godhasledhispeopletoestablishanewsortofsocialorderthat

shallbealightuntoallnations”(Bellah,1970,p.175).ArgumentssuchasAsad’sand

Bellah’s,highlightthefactthattheterm‘secular’isnotbenignorwithoutsignificance,as

weareledtobelieve.Insteadthelabels‘secular’and‘religious’arereciprocalcategories

whichareequallyinvolvedinthestruggleforpowerandhegemonyandassuchcannot,

andmustnot,beconsideredlessprejudicedorbiasedthantheother.25

Accordingly,Asadquestionsthecategories‘secular’and‘religious’bytracing

theirboundaries,anddemonstratingtheambiguityoftheirborders,andcontendsthat

thatthewallsdividingthesecategoriesaremoreporousthanisusuallyassumed.Asad

isbuildingonsomeofFoucault’sideashere,adebtheopenlyacknowledges,inan

25Inthefinalchapter,wewillanalyzethisterm‘secular’anditsimpactontheemergenceofastrongnationalistagendainIndia.

43

interviewconductedbyDavidScott.AsadclaimsFoucault,“suddenlyhadmadestrange

allthosethingsthataresofamiliartous,[and]forcedustothinkabouttheassumptions

onwhichtheyarebuilt”(Scott,2006,p.275).AphilosophywhichAsadthenadoptsfor

hisownworkwhenhetriestoexposehowthesetermsarethelocationofapower

struggle.Heattemptstotracethecomplexpastofthesetermsbyproblematizingthe

mannerinwhichritualshavebeentranslatedassymbolicactsinmodernsecular

society.Asadpointsout,incontrast,thatinthepasttheembodimentofritual

performancewasmorecloselyassociatedwithideasofdisciplineandembodied

involvementinreligioustraditions.Consequently,helamentsthatwhereashistorically,

ritualswereconductedtohelpapersonto‘better’themselves,bylearninghowto

imbibereligiousteachings,andacquirelearningthroughaction,inthemodernworld,

religiousritesareoftentimessimplysymbolsofthe‘religion’oneclaimedtoprofess.

Accordingly,AsadquotesthetheologianHughofSt.Victor(c1096-1141)whocontends,

“Sacraments…areknowntohavebeeninstitutedforthreereasons:onaccountof

humiliation,onaccountofinstruction,onaccountofexercise”(ascitedinAsad,1993,

p.78).Consequently,Asaddeducesthattheseritualswere“partsofaChristianprogram

forcreatinginitsperformer,bymeansofregulatedpractice,the‘mentalandmoral

dispositionsappropriatetoChristians”(1993,p.78).Asadclaimsthatasingle

dimensionalreadingofancienttermsresultsininefficientdefinitionsandtranslations

thatareanattemptat“simplydomesticatingtheoriginal”(Scott,2006,p.275)which,

moreoftenthannot,leadtoerroneousconclusions.“Inmodernthinking,beliefisthe

coreofreligionandthereforethecoreofthatwhichisprivate,trulyone’sown.This

goesbacktoasharpbody-minddistinctionthatwasestablishedinearlymodernity”

(Scott,2006,p.287,emphasisinoriginal).However,Asadargues:

44

Thisisnotamatterofsimplyleavingoutadimensionthatisveryrealinpeople’slivesandthatenablesthemtobecarriersofatradition.Itraisesquestionsabouttheautonomyofaspaceforargument.Becauseargumentisitselfinterwovenwiththebodyinitsentirety,italwaysinvokeshistoricalbodies,bodiesplacedwithinparticulartraditions,withtheirpotentialitiesoffeeling,ofreceptivity,andofsuspicion(Scott,2006,p.288).WhatAsadoffersushereisakeenerunderstandingofthediscrepanciesinherent

inthetermsthatscholarsof‘religion’continuetouse.Bynuancingsomeofthese

concepts,anddemonstratingtheinabilitytocontainthesecategories,hehighlightsthe

needforamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofthehistoryofsuchterms,withtheir

embeddedmeaningsthatarenotimmediatelyevident.Asadfocusesonmanyofthe

issueswiththesemoderncategories,whilealsoaccentuatinghowWesternandnon-

Westerntraditionsarenotonalevelplayingfield.However,whereasAsaddoespoint

usintherightdirectionhedoesnotofferusanysolutionsthatcanbeeasily

implemented.Consequently,hisemphasisontheneedforscholars“tosuppresstheir

personaldistasteforparticulartraditionsiftheyaretounderstandthem”(Asad,1993,

p.200)isnotaccompaniedbyamethodologicalexplanationofhowthis(almost)

impossibletaskofkeepingcontextatbayistobeachieved.Infact,ifoneisto

understandAsadcorrectly,thenoneisleftwiththeimpressionthatthiscanonlybe

accomplishedeitherbyscholarslimitingtheirstudiestotheirnativecultures,or,by

somehowexorcisingcontextualbiasfromanyinterpretationsordebates.Therefore,

whilehisanswersarecertainlythoughtfulandprovocative,unfortunatelytheydonot

provideacourseofactionthatisviable.26

26ThescopeofthisworkdoesnotallowmetoexploreallofAsad’sworkand,assuch,mycritiqueislimitedtothisparticularbook,whichhas,undoubtedly,beenhismostrecognizedworktodate.

45

S.N.Balagangadhara

ItisthissenseoffrustrationthatonehearswhenreadingTheHeatheninhis

Blindness(1994)byS.N.Balagangadhara.Thiswork,whichisbombasticinitstone,calls

fortheeliminationoftheterm‘religion’foranybeliefsystemotherthanChristianity,

JudaismandIslam(Balagangadhara,2005,p.336).Manyscholarsbefore

Balagangadharahavecalledforthistermtobediscardedand,assuch,thisisnotanovel

calltoarms.Forexample,wehavealreadyexaminedW.C.Smith’s,J.Z.Smith’s,andTalal

Asad’sargumentsandtheyarenotalone.Theyareaccompaniedbyotherinteresting

voices,suchastheFrenchanthropologistDanielDubuissonwhoargues:

whatisinquestionis,infact,nothingmoreorlessthancertainpretensionsofmodernWesternsciencetoconceiveofhumankindandtheworldaccordingtocodesthatithaselaboratedandtopointsofreferenceithasfixed.Or,ifweprefertoturnthisobservationintoablunterquestion,isWesternanthropology,religiousanthropologyinparticular,initsquestfortheOtherandforourveryhumanity,capableofdiscoveringanythingbutitself–thatis,anythingotherthanitsowncategoriesanditsownwayofconceivingtheworld?(2003,p.6,emphasisinoriginal)

Similarly,scholarssuchasRussellMcCutcheonandTimothyFitzgeraldhavealso

challengedthevalidityofthiscategoryof‘religion’andthesubsequentneedfora

separatedepartmentofreligiousstudies,arguinginstead,thattheseideasarejustas

easilycategorizedashistory,sociologyoranthropology.Forexample,Fitzgerald

laments:

religionisstillwidelyifsomewhatlooselyusedbyhistoriansandsocialscientistsasifitwereagenuinecrossculturalcategory.Typicallysuchwriterstreatreligionasoneamonganumberofdifferentkindsofsocioculturalphenomenawhoseinstitutionscanbestudiedhistoricallyandsociologically.Thisapproachmayseemtohavesomeobviousvalidityinthecontextofsocieties(especiallywesternChristianones)whereaculturalandjuridicaldistinctionismadebetweenreligionandnon-religion,betweenreligionandthesecular,betweenchurchandstate…inmostcrossculturalcontextssuchadistinction,ifitcanbemadeatall,isatbestunhelpfulandatworstpositivelymisleadingsinceitimposesasuperficialanddistortinglevelofanalysisonthedata(2000,p.4).

Likewise,McCutcheonarguesthattheassumptionthat‘religion’is:

46

unique,andsociohistoricallyautonomous,isitselfascholarlyrepresentationthatoperateswithin,andassistsinmaintaining,averyspecificsetofdiscursivepracticesalongwiththeinstitutionsinwhichthesediscoursesarearticulatedandreproduced(1997,p.3).

PerhapsitisinresponsetoargumentssuchasthesethatBalagangadharafeelstheneed

toshowcase,inexhaustivedetail,thewaythisterm‘religion’is(almost)synonymous

withtheideasnormallyassociatedwiththeAbrahamic‘religions’ingeneral,and

Christianityinparticular.ThisleadsBalagangadharatotheconclusionthat‘religion’is

anillegitimatecategorywhenappliedtoanyofthenon-Abrahamictraditions.

Toprovehistheory,Balagangadharahighlightshowtheword‘religion’

originatesfromtheLatinwordreligioortraditio,i.e.tradition,analternativetermused

forthesamepurposeduringtheGreco-Romanperiod.27Indeed,traditio,orreligio,were

associatedalmostentirelywiththeenactmentandfulfilmentofritualdutieswhichwere

anintegralaspectofone’sfamilialobligationsandcrucialtothewell-beingofsociety.So

embeddedwerethesewordsintheideaofritesandritualsthatBalagangadhara

contendsthatwhenthiswordwaseventuallyusedbyChristians,inrelationwith

doctrineandbelief,theRomanscouldnotcomprehendhowtheChristiansclaimedto

have‘religion’whentheywereagainstthecontinuedperformanceandpracticeof

familialreligiousrites(2005,pp.52-53).Nevertheless,thetermwaseventually

appropriatedbyChristianswhogaveitaverydifferentidentity.Balagangadharapoints

outthatinitially,accordingtotheetymologyoutlinedbytheRomanphilosopherand

statesmanCicero(c65BC),“thosewhocarefullyreviewedandsotospeakretracedthe

loreoftheritualwerecalled“religious”from‘relegere(tore-traceorre-read)’”(ascited

inBalagangadhara,2005,p.222).However,approximatelythreehundredyearslater

27Balagangadharaisnotthefirstscholartotracetheetymologyofthisterm.W.C.Smithalsooffersupaconcisehistorythatisveryuseful.

47

thisdefinitionwasdeclared‘inept’bytheChristianphilosopherLactanius(c320AD)

andwasreplacedbyanewetymology,whichwasbettersuitedtoChristianideas.This

wasarticulatedbythemodernBelgianphilosopherLeoApostel,“re-ligare(totie

together,tolink)…religiousphenomenaasinstrumentsofconnection,asmodesof

union”(ascitedinBalagangadhara,2005,p.222).Furthermore,accordingtoLactanius:

Thenameofreligionistakenfromthebondofpiety,becauseGodhasboundandfastenedmantoHimselfbypiety,sinceitisnecessaryforustoserveHimasLordandobeyHimasfather…Theyaresuperstitiouswhoworshipmanyandfalsegods;butwe,whosupplicatetheonetrueGod,arereligious(ascitedinBalagangadhara,2005,p.223).

Thus,BalagangadharademonstrateshowearlyChristians,who,accordingtothe

Romanshadnoreligiobecausetheyhadnotraditio,neatlyrenovatedtheargument

wherebytheRoman‘pagans’hadno‘religion’becausetheyhadnocleardoctrines,

covenants,savioursorscriptures.

Thereafter,Balagangadharagoesontotracetheevolutionofthistermfromearly

Christianityallthewaythroughmoderntimes.Whatheaccomplisheswiththetellingof

thisintricatehistoryistoconvincehisreadersthatthisterm‘religion’becameoneof

themostimportantwaysinwhichChristiansidentifiedthemselves.Somuchso,thathe

states,“iftheword‘religion’referstosomethingatall,itrefersatleasttoChristianity

becausethelatterreferstoitselfasareligion(i.e.itusesthewordwithrespectto

itself)”(Balagangadhara,2005,p.292).However,hedoesnotlimitthisdefinitionto

ChristianityandgoesontoarguethatJudaismandIslamarealso‘religions’since

“ChristianitydidnotmerelybaptizeJudaismandIslamasrivalreligions.Thelatteralso

sawChristianityasarivalreligionunderthesamedescription”(Balagangadhara,2005,

p.292).Andtherefore,accordingtoBalagangadhara,theytooacceptedthislabel

‘religion’forthemselves.Whatmakesthisparticularargumentdifficulttoacceptisthe

wayhereasonsthatJudaismandIslammustalsobe‘religions’:

48

Ofcourse,itispossiblethatJudaismandIslammerelyreactedtotheattacksofChristianityandacceptedChristianity’sself-description…[however]Eachofthesethreereligionssingledoutexactlythesamerivalsunderthesamedescriptionelsewhereunerringly.JudaismhadsingledouttheRomanreligioasitsrivalbeforeChristianitywasevenborn;IslamhadpickedoutpreciselythoseIndiantraditionsasitsrivals,whichChristianitywasalsotoidentify,centuriesbeforetheEuropeanChristianslaunchedtheirmajorandmassiveevangelisingactivities(Balagangadhara,2005,p.293,emphasisinoriginal).

Onecouldcounterthisargumentinmultipleways;first,letusnotforgetthatthe

Christians,andthentheMuslims,appropriatedtheHebrewBibleastheirown,thereby

identifyingacommonhistory.Naturally,thisalsomeantthattheywouldhavetoadopt

thesocalled‘rivals’oftheancientJews.Secondly,whereasitmaybetruethatthe

JewishpeoplehadalsorecognizedtheRomansastheirrivals,itisalsoevidentthatthey

werechallengingthevalidityofeachother’straditionsandritualactivities,nottheir

doctrines.ThisisapointthatBalagangadharahimselfshedslightonwhenheargues

thattheJewshadalreadyproventhattheywereapeoplewithtraditiothatwasolder

thantheRomanssincetheyhadtracedtheirhistorytoMoseswhoclearlypredated

Homer(Balagangadhara,2005,pp.47-48).ThisallowedtheJewishcommunityto

establishthattheycamefromanancientpeoplewithwhomtheysharedacommon

ancestry,traditionsandrituals.Moreover,whereasitmaybepossibletoargue‘Islam

pickedoutpreciselythoseIndiantraditionsasitsrivals,’thiswouldsimplyprovethat

theMuslimsrecognizedIndiantraditionsasjustthat,i.e.rivaltraditions.Furthermore,

BalagangadharaclaimsthatIslamandJudaismarealso‘religions’becauseoftheway

‘religion’hasbeenformulatedanddefined.Ifthisisthecasethenonepresumesthatthe

JewsandtheMuslims,justliketheChristians,musthavealsoembracedthisidentity

withoutquestion.However,therearemanyJewsandMuslimswhoarenotcomfortable

withtheparametersandboundariesthattheterm‘religion’hasset.Wehavealready

seenthatAsadarguesagainsttheseparationof‘religion’fromstatesince,accordingto

49

him,thisisnotanaturaldivisioninmanyIslamicstates.Similarly,DanielBoyarin,a

scholarofJewishstudies,doesnotacceptthatJudaismadoptedthislabelwithout

reservations.Instead,hehighlightsthecomplexityoftheseissuesinBorderlines(2004):

WhileChristianityfinallyconfiguresJudaismasadifferentreligion,Judaismitself,Isuggest,attheendofthedayrefusesthatcall,sothatseenfromthatperspectivethedifferencebetweenChristianityandJudaismisnotsomuchadifferencebetweentworeligionsasadifferencebetweenareligionandanentitythatrefusestobeone(Boyarin,2004,pp.7-8).

WhyisitsoimportantforBalagangadharatoincludeJudaismandIslaminthe

parametershehassetforthisterm‘religion’?Onecouldspeculatethatthismaymake

Balagangadhara’sensuingarguments,whichclaimthatHinduismisnota‘religion’,

morecompellingbecauseitallowshimtoseparatetheWesternAbrahamic‘religions’

fromIndiantraditionswho,presumably,donotsharethesameancestry.Bethatasit

may,whathedoesaccomplishisaparticularlyconvincingargumentthatfirmly

harnessesthelabel‘religion’toChristianity,anditsrelevanthistory,whichmakesit

extremelydifficulttousethistermwithoutevengraverreservations.However,whereas

thismayconvinceustodiscardtheterm‘religion’whennotspeakingaboutChristianity,

itdoesnotofferusanyanswersonhowtoconductstudiesofareligiousnaturefrom

hereonout.Thus,althoughBalagangadharahimselfacknowledgesthenecessityfor

somelinguistictools(2005,p.341),whichwillallowfortheseinvestigationstobe

carriedout,healsoadmitsthathedoesnothaveanyanswers.Nevertheless,hedoes

insistthatreplacingtheterm‘religion’withalternativetermslike‘worldview’,which

wasmadepopularbyNinianSmart(Balagangadhara,2005,p.341),wouldnotresolve

thisdilemmabutwouldsimplyleadusbacktothesameimpassewithessentialized

ideasthatbecomereifiedovertime.

50

RichardKing

AccordingtoRichardKinginOrientalismandReligion(1999).thebestwayto

addressthisimpasseisby“changingthesubject”(1999,p.1):

Iwishtoarguethatbothphilosophyandthehistoryofideasshouldtakemoreseriouslynotonlythesociallocationoftheconceptsunderexaminationbutalsotheirinvolvementinawiderculturalfieldofpowerrelations,orwhathasbecomeknownas‘thepoliticsofknowledge’.Inparticular,Iwishtoargueforanawarenessofthemutualimbricationofreligion,cultureandpowerascategories.Thisisnottosaythatreligionandculturecanbereducedtoasetofpowerrelationsbutratherthatreligionandculturearethefieldinwhichpowerrelationsoperate(1999,p.1).

ForKing,thefirstissuethatneedstobeinvestigatedisnotthedifferentways‘religion’

hascometobedefined.Instead,hewantstoquestionwhy‘religion’hasbeen

categorizedinamannerwhichforcesittoberestrictedtotheprivatedomain.To

emphasizehispoint,helinkstheconcepts‘religion’and‘mysticism’together.Atfirst

glance,onewouldassumethatwhereasthetwoconceptsarerelated,theyarenotthe

same.However,hehighlightshowextensivelythesetermshavebeenused

interchangeablyaftertheEnlightenmentera.Hearguesthatsincetheterm‘religion’

becamesoembeddedinitsinstitutionalbackground,scholarslikeWilliamJames28

beganadoptingtheterm‘mysticism’todistinguishwhattheybelievedwasthe

‘essential’coreofreligiousexperiencesfromitsoutertrappingsofdoctrinesanddogma.

Indeed,“forJames‘organized’orinstitutionalreligionwas‘second-hand’religion.True

religionwastobefoundintheprivate,‘religious’andmysticalexperiencesof

individuals(King,1999,pp.21-22).AsKingpointsout,oneofthekeystrategiesused

28WilliamJamesseminalworkTheVarietiesofReligiousExperience:AStudyinHuman

Nature(1902)isacrucialturningpointinthewaytheterm‘mysticism’begantobewidelyusedtodescribereligiousexperienceforawiderangeofreligioustraditions.ForadetailedsurveyonWilliamJamesandhisimpactonmodernscholarship,refertoWilliamJamesandthevarietiesofreligiousexperience:acentenarycelebration(2005).Ed.JeremyCarrette

51

hereisthatthe‘mystical’istakenfromthepublicsphereandplacedsquarelyinthe

privaterealm(1999,p.13).Inhindsight,thisshiftisnotsurprisinginthepost-

Enlightenmenterawhenrationalityandsciencewereregardedasthepricelessgemsof

moderncivilization.Asaresult,‘religious’experiences,whichwerenowbeinglabelled

‘mystical’experiences,wereviewedas‘private’experiences,whichdidnotneed

confirmationorvalidationfromoutsidesources.Forexample,GraceJantzenquotes

Jameswhenshepointsoutthat“heconcludesfamouslythatmysticalstates‘areand

havetherighttobeabsolutelyauthoritativeovertheindividualstowhomtheycome’

yet‘non-mysticsareundernoobligationstoacknowledgeinmysticalstatesasuperior

authority’”(ascitedinJantzen,2005,p.98).

AccordingtoKing,thismove,whichtookthe‘mystical’fromthepublicrealmto

theprivatesphere,wasinfact,apowerplay.Hearguesthatremovingthe‘religious’or

the‘mystical’fromitscontextseverelyunderplaystherolethat‘mysticism’hasplayed,

andcontinuestoplay,insocialandpoliticalsituations:

Theveryfactthat‘themystical’isseenasirrelevanttoissuesofsocialandpoliticalauthorityitselfreflectscontemporary,secularizednotionsofandattitudestowardspower.Theseparationofmysticalfromthepoliticalisitselfapoliticaldecision!(King,1999,p.10).

LikeAsad,KinglinksthisstrategytothewaytheWesternworldcontinuestojudge

(usuallynegatively)anystatewhere‘religion’isopenlyinvolvedinpoliticaldecisions.

Thewaythesestatesandtheirpoliticsarediscredited,givesthereaderanideaofhow

theprivatizationof‘religion’hasallowedmanyWesternstatesto(wrongly)presume

thatanygovernmentthatallows‘religion’toplayaroleinpolicymakingisinvalid:

OneconsequenceofthemoderndistinctionbetweenthespheresofreligionandpoliticshasbeentofosterasuspicionamongWesternersthatanylinkageofthetworealmsisanexampleofa‘merelyrhetorical’useofreligiousdiscoursetomasksomeunderlyingpolitical,ideologicalor‘worldly’intention(King,1999,p.13).

52

Furthermore,healsoargues,“thishasallowedtheWesttodefineitselfasprogressive,

scientificandliberalincontrasttothesuperstitious,tradition-boundand‘under-

developed’ThirdworldnationsofAsia”(2005,p.111).

ItisevidentthattheEnlightenmenterawasacrucialturningpointforthe

developmentofWesternreligiousideas.ItwasduringthisperiodwhenChristianitywas

beingcontrastedwithscience,andfoundtobewantinginthisageofreason.According

toKing,“theassociationof‘themystical’exclusivelywitharealmdenotedbytheterm

‘religion’isaproductofsecularizationwhich‘filtersout’thereligiousdimensionfrom

otheraspectsofhumanculturalactivity”(1999,p.17).Therefore,itishardlysurprising

thatitwasthistermthatwasusedtodescribetheOrient,“therepresentationof

HinduismandBuddhismas‘mystical’hasfunctionedtoreinforceWesternstereotypes

ofEasternreligionandcultureasworld-denying,amoralandlackinganimpulseto

improvesociety”(King,2005,p.111).

ThiswasfurthercomplicatedbythefactthatWesterncountrieswereactively

colonizingtherestoftheworld,whichnotonlyresultedinapowerstruggle,butalso

thesubsequentinteractionofdifferentcultures,andanexchangeofideasthatwas

unprecedented.Thissoonledtothedevelopmentofthecategory‘worldreligions’

whichgavethesemblanceofpluralityandanon-hegemonicattitudebyincludingthe

Abrahamic‘religions’withthenewlydiscovered‘religions’oftheEast.However,King

contends:

AsTomokoMasuzawa(2005)hasrecentlyargued,thediscourseof‘worldreligions’,whilstappearingonthesurfacetorepresentaliberalandpluralisticimprovementontheoldernineteenthcenturydiscourseofChristiansuperiority,continuestoperpetuateanunderlyingEurocentriclogicthatframesthe‘restoftheworld’aslittlemorethanersatzversionsofEuropeancivilizations–variationsonasingletheme.Thishasbeenthemainconsequenceoftheuniversalizationofthecategoryofreligionacrossdisparategeographical,temporal,ethnicandcivilizationalzones,namelytheestablishmentofa

53

paradigmatictemplateforwriting‘universalhistory’,framedbythecategories,experiencesandlocalhistoriesofwhiteEuropeans(2010,p.104).

Indeed,Masuzawastates:

thenewdiscourseofpluralismanddiversityofreligions,whenitfinallybrokeoutintotheopenandbecameanestablishedpracticeinthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,neitherdisplaced,nordisabledthelogicofEuropeanhegemony–formerlycouchedinthelanguageoftheuniversalityofChristianity–but,inaway,gaveitanewlease(2005,p.xiv).

Similarly,KingisalsointerestedinhighlightingtherolethatEuropeanideashave

played,andcontinuetoplay,intheformationofthesemoderncategories.Furthermore,

heisparticularlyconcernedwithexposingtherolethatpoliticshashadintheso-called

‘private’realmof‘religion’,bothintheEastandWest:

ThebroadmethodologicalstancethatIhavebeenadvocatingthroughoutthisbookcouldbedescribedasanattemptto‘anthropologize’theWest(PaulRabinow),inparticulartorendercontemporaryWesternconstructionsofreality‘exotic’bydrawingattentiontotheculturalparticularityofsuchknowledgesystemsandtheirhistoricalinvolvementinthesystematicandviolentsuppressionofnon-Westernwaysoflife,formsofknowledgeandconstructionsofreality(King,1999,p.187).

Heisadvocatingforacontextualanalysiswhichwouldhelptoeradicatesomeofthe

issuessurroundingthedefinitionsofthesecategories.However,whereashis

suggestionsdogiveusawayinwhichtodecipherthepast,hedoesnotofferusa

methodfordealingwiththecurrentusageofthesecategories,whichisundeniably

necessaryifscholarstodayaretocontinuetodialoguewithculturesotherthantheir

own.Indeed,heseemstobeawareofthisdilemmaandacknowledges,“the

postmodernistandpost-structuralistinterestindissolvingunitiesintomorecomplex

heterogeneitieshasmuchincommonwithsimilarpostcolonialmovesbuthasbeenseen

bysomeasunderminingthelegitimacyofthe‘searchforidentity’byoppressedgroups”

(1999,p.197).Thus,eventhoughwegetthesensethatKingrecognizestheissues,since

hestressestheneedfordefinitionstobeconstantlycontextualizedandnot“disengaged

54

from[their]historicallocation”(1999,p.198),hedoesnotofferusthetoolsthatare

necessaryforcontinueddialogueacrossculturaldivides.

Conclusion

IfIamtobecompletelyhonesthowever,IshouldacknowledgethatIdonothave

anyrealanswerseither.Indeed,IwouldarguethatitisforthisveryreasonthatIkeep

searchingforsolutionsintheworksoftheseandotherscholars.Unfortunately,Ihave

notcomeupwitharesponsethatseemsimmediatelyviable.Assuch,eventhough

discardingthesetermsseemslikethesimplestsolution,itcanbeoneofthehardest

thingstoputintopractice.Afterall,theseconceptshavebecometoolsof

communicationfortoomanypeopleforscholarstosimplyadvocatefortheirremoval.

Yet,continuingtousethemisalsoproblematic,andfrustrating,forthosewhoareaware

ofthelimitationsofthesecategoriesbutcannotfindawayoutofthisdilemma.Oneof

thesolutionsthatscholarsofferistheneedforanawarenessofthecomplexhistoryof

theselabels,andnodoubtthisisastepintherightdirection.But,wheredowegofrom

there?Anynewtermsthatacademicsmightcomeupwithwilleventuallybefraught

withthesameissues.Thisleadsustoanimpasse.Nonetheless,sincewehavetomove

forward,Imustchoosealabelthatcanbeusedfortheword‘religion’,atermwhichwill

alsoberecognizedasatentativeterm;avirtualhouseofcardssincealltheseconcepts

runtheriskofbecomingessentializedorreified.Keepingtheseargumentsinmind,I

willneverthelessusetheterm‘tradition’sinceitisalabelthatseemstobestallowfor

theinclusionofembodiedrituals,texts,relationshipswiththesupernatural,location,

ancestry,philosophyandmostimportantly,context.However,Idosowiththeexplicit

understandingthatlikeW.C.Smith,iftoowideadefinitionisusedfortheterm

‘tradition’thenitwillsoonbecomeanemptyconceptwhichservesnorealpurpose.

55

Andfinally,themainreasonwhyitwassoimportanttobeginthisprojectwitha

detailedsurveyofsomeofthewaystheterm‘religion’hascometobeunderstoodis

becauseVivekanandahimselfstruggledwithdefiningthisconcept.Accordingly,wewill

seehowmanyofthedilemmasidentifiedbythesemodernscholars,withusingthelabel

‘religion’,arenotnewdiscussionsbutratherthecontinuationofadebatethatbegan

centuriesagowithcolonization.Infact,W.C.Smith’sefforttofindalternatelabels,J.Z.

Smith’ssearchforacommonwebofideas,Asad’srefusaltorelegate‘religion’tothe

privatesphere,Balagangadhara’sargumentsagainsttheAbrahamicreligions,andKing’s

rejectionofoverarchinglabelsarealltopicsthatwereaddressedbyVivekananda.

Consequently,thissurveyofmodernvoicesdebatingthevalueofthelabel‘religion’

allowsustohaveaframeworkfromwhichtocomprehendthevalueofinvestigating

howVivekananda’svoiceimpactedthesediscussions.Inthepreviouschapter,wesaw

thatBankimchandrarefusedtolimitthedefinitionof‘dharma’tothewesternconceptof

‘religion’.Similarly,inChapter5,wewilldiscusshowVivekanandaalsoresistedtheuse

ofthisterm‘religion’ashedidnotbelievethatitadequatelyarticulatedthenuancesin

Hindutraditionalideas.Thisinturn,highlightshow‘continentalcollision’doesnot

implyasimpledominationofonecultureoveranotherbutrather,areasofnegotiation

andrenegotiation;repercussionsofwhicharestillbeingfeltinthediscussionsofthe

scholarssurveyedinthischapter.Keepingtheseargumentsinmind,wewillnow

investigatesomeofthenuancesintheso-calledcreation,andhistory,ofanotherhotly

contestedterm,‘Hinduism’.

56

The‘Hinduism’Question

Onesimplyhastolookatashelfofbooksonmodern‘Hinduism’inorderto

realizethattheuseofthelabel‘Hinduism’isfraughtwithissuesthatareyettobe

resolved.TitlessuchasImaginedHinduism(2006),ImaginingHinduism(2003),Was

HinduismInvented(2005)andWhoInventedHinduism(2006)alertreaderstothefact

thatthislabelhasbecomeasparringgroundformanyscholarsofIndiantraditions.

Especiallysincethishas,inturn,ledtotheproductionofvolumesofessayssuchas

RepresentingHinduism(1995),HinduismReconsidered(2005)andDefiningHinduism

(2005),allofwhichofferexcellentobservations,butwhichunfortunately,donotput

manyofthepertinentissuestorest.Indeed,aswesawwiththeterm‘religion’inthe

previouschapter,scholarshaveraisedquestionsabouttheappropriatenessofusinga

termlike‘Hinduism’todescribethemanydiverseHindusectsforcenturiesnow.

Consequently,itmaynotsurprisereaderstolearnthatthemoreoneinvestigatesthese

issues,themoreconfusingtheybecome,andthatevenacademicswhoclaimtohave

takenaside,areunabletodrawclearlinesofseparation.Instead,weareleftwith

multiplefuzzybordersandoverlappingideasthatchallengetheverycategoriesthatare

beingusedtoanalysethisdatainthefirstplace.Aswetracetheargumentsofsomeof

thevoicesinthisfield,wewillrealizethatitisnotthedatathatisconfusing,butrather,

therepeateduseofWesterncategoriesthatmaybekeepingscholarsfromarrivingata

resolutionthatisappropriatefortheIndiantraditionsthattheyareattemptingto

interpret.Indeed,thesecontemporarydiscussionsareacontinuationofargumentsthat

werebeingdebatedamongstnatives,andtheircolonizers,duringtheBritishRaj.And,

aswewillwitnessintheensuingchapters,thiswasadialoguethatVivekanandawas

deeplyinvestedin.Henotonlyrefusedtousethesetermswithoutfirstdissectingthem

57

andthenrefashioningthemtosuithisneeds,healsomadeanefforttochallengetheir

westerndefinitionstherebyparticipatinginthisongoingcontroversy.Assuch,this

currentsurveywillofferusaframeofreferencefromwhichtobetterunderstandthe

complexitiesofthepositionhetook,nottomention,theenduringrelevanceofhis

argumentstoday.

PaulHacker

PaulHackerwasoneoftheearliestcontemporaryacademicstoinvestigate,in

somedetail,themanycomponentsofwhatheconsideredtobeahithertounexamined

useofthistitle‘Hinduism’.29Inhisessay“AspectsofNeo-HinduismasContrastedwith

SurvivingTraditionalHinduism”(1995)Hackerarguesthatthereisadistinction

betweenintellectualswhobelievedthatWesterncolonizationhadresultedinthemuch

neededreformofIndiantraditions,andthosewhoheldthatWesterninfluenceshad

simplybeenthecatalystthatledtoanIndianrenaissance:

Theuseoftheterm‘reform’betraystheEuropeanwhowishestobringbettermenttoIndia;‘renaissance’,ontheotherhand,indicatestheatmosphereofHindunationalism…IntheIndianculturallifeofthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesthereactuallywereevents,which,ifevaluatedfromtheangleofEuropeanculture,canbedescribedas‘reforms’.ButtheseveryreformswereclaimedbyHindusastheirownachievement,whichisquitecorrectinasmuchasHinduseffectedthechanges.ThusitisquitenaturalthatHindunationalismsawthesechangesasarevivalofHinduism(Hacker,1995,p.230).

HackermainlyfocusesonIndiannationalists,mostofwhom,heclaims,preferredusing

termslike‘revival’whenbringingaboutchangesince,thiscoincidedmoreeffectively

withtheirnationalistideals.ItisinterestingtonotethatwhileHackeracknowledges

thatnativevoiceslikeRammohanRoy’swereprecursorstothosefromthenineteenth

29WhereasHackerwasaprolificwriterIwillconcentrateprimarilyonhisessay“AspectsofNeo-HinduismasContrastedwithSurvivingTraditionalHinduism”(1sted.1970).

58

andtwentiethcentury,hedoesnotconcedethattheseearlyleaderswouldhave

probablyclassifiedthemselvesasreformers.Perhapsthisisbecausethiswould

undermineHacker’stheorywhicharguesthattheWesterninfluencedIndian

nationalistsweremorecomfortablewiththetitle‘revivalist’ratherthanthedesignation

of‘reformer’.30Bethatasitmay,Hackeronlyseemstobeconcernedwithleadersfrom

thelate19thand20thcentury;leaderswhohethengoesontolabelas‘Neo-Hindus.’

TodescribewhathemeantbyNeo-HindusHackerfirstcontrastedthemwiththe

Hinduswhoheconsideredtobetheir‘other’;thatis,thosewhowereexplicitlyintenton

retainingtheirancientideasandrituals,whomhelabelled‘TraditionalHindus’.This

ideaofHacker’s,whichsuggeststhatthereweretwokindsofpeoplewhocalled

themselvesHindus,isworthpayingcloserattentiontosinceitsetsupabinarythatis

oftentimeschallengedintheworkoflaterscholarswhostudy‘Hinduism’(asweshall

observewithWilhelmHalbfassinthenextsection).AccordingtoHacker,themain

differencebetweenthetwogroupswastheirconnectionwiththepast.Hackerseemsto

beimplyingthatwhereasTraditionalHinduswerenotaversetoincorporatingnew

ideasintotheirexistingworldviews,theywereunwillingtoallowtheseconceptsto

underminetheirassociationwiththeirancestraltexts.Incontrast,Neo-Hindus,in

Hacker’sopinion,hadatsometime,beendisenchantedwiththetraditionalsystemin

whichtheygrewup,andassuch,weremorewillingtoacceptforeignideasanduse

themtoreinterprettheirancientscripturesandideology:

Neo-HinduismandHindutraditionalismarenottwodefinitesystemsbutrathertwodistinctmentalattitudes…TraditionalHinduismassimilatesandabsorbsextraneouselementsinamannercharacteristicallydistinctfromNeo-Hinduism.Unlikethelatter,itmaintainsalivingcontinuitywiththepast.Eveninthepast,

30InNationalizationofHinduTraditions(1999)VasudhaDalmiaunpacksthecomplexitiesembeddedintheselabels,andthewayHinduseitherappropriatedorrejectedthem.AtopicwhichwewillreturntoinChapter6whenwetrytoestablishwhichdesignationbestsuitedVivekananda’sagenda.

59

Hindugroupsoftenabsorbedforeignelements.Thesecertainlychangedtheappearanceofthereligionoftherespectivegroups.Butatthesametimemostoftheoldvaluesretainedpreviousvitality.InNeo-Hinduism,onthecontrary,thecontinuitywiththepastisbroken.ThetypicalNeo-Hinduhasatsomeperiodofhislifelosthisconfidenceinhisnativereligion(1995,p.232).

Despitearticulatingthisdistinctionbetweenthesetwogroups,Hackerquicklyclarifies

thatheisnotimplyingthatthissignifiedtheexistenceofacohesiveorcomprehensive

tradition.Instead,hecontends:

Neo-Hinduismisnotaunifiedsystemofideas.Infact,itischieflybecauseofonecommontraitthatIclassifyreligiousthinkersasNeo-Hindus.TheirintellectualformationisprimarilyorpredominantlyWestern.ItisEuropeanculture,andinseveralcaseseventheChristianreligion,whichhasledthemtoembracecertainreligious,ethical,socialandpoliticalvalues.Butafterwardstheyconnectthesevalueswith,andclaimthemas,partoftheHindutradition(Hacker,1995,p.231).

TheunderlyingconflictinthisargumentofHacker’sisnoteworthy.Ontheonehand,he

arguesthattheNeo-HindusweretheintellectualoffspringofWesterncolonialismand

theiractionswerepredominantlyinfluencedbyWesternideas.Yet,ontheotherhand,

Hacker’sreflectionsalsohighlightwhatmadethepoliticalstruggleoftheseprominent

IndiannationalistsuniquelydifferentfromthoseoftheirWesterncounterparts.They

wereconvincedthattheonlywaytobringaboutthechangenecessaryforIndia’s

independence,wastoencourageamuch-neededoverhauloftheexistentsystem.For

instance,whenspeakingofIndia’ssecondpresident,SarvepalliRadhakrishnanandhis

visionforthefutureofIndia,HackerobservesthatwhereastheWesternideaofa

‘nationstate’hadtakenrootinRadhakrishnan’simagination,nevertheless,ithaddone

soinaratheruniquefashion:

thisnationalismappearsinapeculiarlyIndiangarb.Radhakrishnanattributedthepoliticaldownfallnottopoliticalcausesbuttotheintellectualincoherenceandethicalrottennessofhisnationalreligion.Accordingly,heseekstheremedyfortheevilnotinpoliticalmeasuresbutinreligiouschange(Hacker,1995,p.233).

60

OneisimmediatelystruckbythefactthatHackerissurprisedthattheseparation

betweenthepublicandtheprivatesphere,whichhadbecomemandatoryforWestern

society,wasnotreflectedinthewayIndiannationalistswereattemptingtostructure

theirownsociety.Moreover,HackerrecognizesthatRadhakrishnanwasnotalone,

sinceotherleaderslikeBankimchandra,VivekanandaandGandhiwerealsoinvestedin

theideathatthebestwaytoimprovethestateofthecountry,wasbyenablinga

modernizationofthenational‘religion’,i.e.‘Hinduism’.Indeed,asfarasHackeris

concerned,thiswasoneofthemostimportantfactorsthatqualifiedtheseleadersas

Neo-Hindus.However,theirinsistenceonthefactthatIndia’ssuccesswasintimately

associatedwithitsabilitytomodernizeitstraditionalidealsraisesseveralquestions.31

Forexample,ifthesenationalists’intellectualformationwassoindebtedtoWestern

idealsthenwhyweretheynotincorporatingtheseparationof‘religion’andstatein

theirownpoliticalcampaigns?Didthisimply,asbothAsadandKinghavesuggested,

thattheWesterncategoriesofpolitics,stateand‘religion’werenoteasilytransferable

ontothisuniquelyIndiansituation?Unfortunatelyhowever,insteadofexploringthe

validityofthesecategories,andtheirapplicationtotheIndiansubcontinent,Hacker

simplystatesthatthisleads“totheconclusionthatnationalismisthechiefimpulseof

typicalNeo-Hinduthinking”(Hacker,1995,p.233).Whereasthismaybetrue,Hacker

doesnotexplainhownationalisticidealscouldhaveanythingtodowith‘religious’

beliefsandwhythesecategoriescouldnotbeseparatedneatlyintheIndiancontext.

31Whereas‘modern’and‘modernize’arecomplextermsthatcanbeinterpretedinamyriadofways,forthepurposesofthisprojectIwilllimitmyselftoGustavoBenevidesdefinition;“sincesignificationtakesplacewithinasystemofoppositions,inordertocountoneselfamongthemodernionehadtodistinguishoneselffromtheantiqui”(1998,p.186)

61

Infact,Hackersimplyignorestheissuesthatemergebecauseofhisfindings,

preferringinsteadtofocusonhowalternateinterpretationsofHindutermswere

adoptedbynativefollowers,whichheargues,ledtothecreationofanundeniable

dividebetweenTraditionalHindusandNeo-Hindus.HepointsoutthatforTraditional

Hindus,theconceptof“dharmacomprisesnormsorpatternsofconduct,mostofwhich

differaccordingtoaman’scasteandstageoflife”(Hacker,1995,p.237).Thisimplies

thatforTraditionalHindus,castewasnotacategorythatcouldbeignoredordiscarded.

Alternatively,hecontends,“mostoftheprominentNeo-Hindus,ontheotherhand,have

reinterpreteddharmamoreorlessradicallyaccordingtoWesternmodels”whereby

castenolongerplayedacentralroleinitsdefinition(Hacker,1995,p.238).Healsouses

theexampleofBankimchandratodemonstratehowmanyNeo-Hindushadpractically

reinventedthisconcepttomakeitcompatiblewithWesternideology:

BankimCandraCattopadhaya[sic]wasperhapsthefirsttooffersuchareinterpretation[ofdharma].Inordertoevaluatehisnovelconcept,wefirsthavetonotethattheworddharmahasothermeaningsbesidethemeaning‘patternofconduct’…Thewordmayalsosignify‘anessentialquality’ofathing.Moreover,manymodernIndianlanguagesuseitasanequivalentoftheEuropeanword‘religion’.BankimachievedhisreinterpretationbyfusingallthethreemeaningsImentioned,namely(1)patternofconduct,(2)essentialquality,(3)religion.Thushearrivedattheconclusionthatreligionisman’sessentialquality,denotedbytheword‘humanity’(manusyatva)butitisatthesametimeapatternofconduct,anidealwhoserealizationmanisobligedtostrivefor(Hacker,1995,p.238).

Byusingexamplessuchasthese,HackerconcludesthatNeo-Hindusadoptedmanyof

theirideasfromWesternphilosophy,andthenwentontorestructureIndiantermsto

fitforeignmodels.32Ontheotherhand,whenspeakingofhowTraditionalHindus

adoptedsomeofthesameideas,Hackerarguesthattheydidsobyintroducingnew

conceptsintotheirtraditionaltexts.Thisallowedthemtoreinterpretcertainaspectsof

32Fore.g.Hackersuggests,“BankimremodeledHinduismaccordingtowhathehadlearnedfromthepositivistsAugusteComteandJohnStuartMill”(1995,p.238).

62

theirscriptures,withoutcallingfora“transmutation”oftheideasthatwerepreviously

heldbythecommunity.Accordingly,hedemonstrateshowtheideaof‘seva’(service)

forbrahminswasviewednegativelyinancienttimesbecausebrahminswerethe

‘superior’caste,andassuch,couldnotbeseendemeaningthemselvesbyservingthose

whowereofalowercaste.However,HackerassertsthatduringtheBritishRaj,when

theemphasiswasplacedon‘service’byvariousChristiangroups,TraditionalHindus

reinterpretedtheirtextstoreflecttheideasoftheircolonizers:

theideasofsevawiththeattitudeof“beingpleasedwiththewell-beingofallcreatures,”whichhasbeenanethicalvaluecommonlyrecognizedinIndiaatleastfromthetimewhenBuddhismwaspreponderantinthesubcontinent,andwhichoccursintheBhagavadgitaandinaconsiderablenumberofpassagesintheGreatEpic.Yetthemodernnotionofseva…givesanactiveturntowhatpreviouslywasessentiallyamentaldisposition,anditispreciselythisturnwhichrevealsinfluencefromoutside.Nevertheless,theadditionofthenewvaluedoesnotimplyatransmutationofthetraditionalconceptofdharma(Hacker,1995,p.238).

Nodoubt,thisterm‘seva’acquireddifferentcaveatsatthehandsofTraditional

Hindus,which,inturn,changedthewaythisconceptwastobeunderstood.Assuch,

Hacker’sargumentthatthisdidnotconstituteasa“transmutation”highlightsthe

difficultywithdistinguishingthewayTraditionalHindusreinterpretedideas,in

comparisonwiththemethodsadoptedbyNeo-Hindus.33Indeed,asiftocomplicate

mattersfurther,ontheonehand,HackerarguesthatNeo-Hindustooknewideasfrom

othertraditions,especiallyChristianity,andfoundawaytoconnectthemwith

dominantnativetraditions.Yet,ontheotherhand,hearguesthatNeo-Hindus

reinterpretedHinduconceptsinsuchawaytomakethemmorecompatiblewith

Westernideals,whichinturn,madetheirnativeidentityunrecognizable.Forexample,

HackerclassifiesGandhiasaNeo-Hinduwhowasevidentlyinfluencedbyhisexposure

33Thisconcept‘seva’isoneofthecornerstonesofVivekananda’slegacyandisatopicthatwewillinvestigateextensivelyinthefollowingchapters.

63

toWesternphilosophy,literatureand‘religion’.Nevertheless,Gandhiwentonto

advocateforthereturnof‘Ramarajya’(theruleofRam),aperiodwhentheKingRam,

whowasknownforhismoralbackboneanddevotiontodharma,ruledhiskingdom

justly.So,isGandhireallyaNeo-HinduorisheaTraditionalHindu?Isitpossible,or

evennecessarytodrawthisdistinction?Afterall,whatpurposedoesitserve?Isthis

distinctiononlyimportantbecauseitallowsscholarstodividemodernHindusinto

categories,i.e.,conservative,liberal,traditional,‘neo’,etc.,thatareanaturalcomponent

ofWestern‘religious’theory?Indeed,onecouldarguethatthewallsdividing

TraditionalHindusandNeo-Hindushavesuchporousbordersthatthecontinueduseof

thesetermswouldonlyfurthercomplicatematters.

ThemostironicaspectofthisargumentisthatHackerhimselfrecognizedthe

problemsthatcouldbeassociatedwithdistinguishingthesetwocategorieswhenhe

states,“[i]tmayevenhappenthatoneandthesamepersoncombineselementsofboth

waysofthinking”(Hacker,1995,p.232).Thus,onehastowonderwhy,ifHackersaw

thepitfallsofsuchadistinction,hestillinsistedondividingtheIndianintellectual

publicinthisratherfutileway.Moreover,whatmakesthisattemptofHacker’s,to

separateHindusintothesedistinctidentities,evenmorefrustratingisthatittakesaway

fromoneofthemorecompellingaspectsofhisargument;thatHindus,ingeneral,have

tendedtoadoptforeignideasandreinterprettheminsuchawayastoallowthemtobe

compatiblewiththeirowntraditions.ThisconceptthatHackercalls‘inclusivism’isnot

applicableonlytoNeo-Hindusbutinsteadisatermthatcanbeusedforbothgroups.34

Indeed,Hackerhimselfrecognizesthisbecausehestatesthatthisattitude:

34Wewillreturntothisterm‘inclusivism’inthefinalchaptersinceitisalabelthathasbeenusedfor‘Hinduism’ingeneral,andVivekanandainparticular,andassuch,hasbecomeadefensemechanismformanyHindusandthenationalistmovementwhentheyareaccusedofbeingintoleranttowardsothertraditions.

64

isnotrestrictedtoNeo-Hinduism.Infact,itstemsfromhoaryantiquity.InsomepublicationsofmineIhavecalledit‘inclusivism.’Itconsistsinclaimingfor,andthusincludingin,one’sownreligionwhatreallybelongstoanaliensect(Hacker,1995,p.244).

Consequently,ifthisisatraitthatiscommontobothNeo-Hindus,andTraditional

Hindus,doesn’tthisproblematizethelinesofdivision,thatHackerhasdrawnbetween

thesetwocategories,evenfurther?Thistrait‘inclusivism’exemplifiesoneofthemost

importantaspectsofHindutraditions;i.e.thefactthatthecategories,whichscholars

havegrownaccustomedtousing,arenotairtightontheIndiansubcontinentand,as

such,mustbeusedwithextremecautionandmanydisclaimers.Byexplicatingthis

inclusivistattitude,thatisrelativelycommonamongstHindus,Hackerdemonstrated

whyitisstillsodifficult,eventoday,forscholarstoarticulatewhat‘Hinduism’is

becausesomuchcanbeincludedinthiscategorythateventuallythelabelitselfis

oftentimesdeemedredundant.KeepingHacker’sideasinmind,Iwillnowturnto

WilhelmHalbfass,whonotonlyengageswithHacker’sargumentsbutalsogoesonto

buildvaluableonesofhisown.

WilhelmHalbfass

InIndiaandEurope:AnEssayinUnderstanding(1988),WilhelmHalbfass

respondstoHackertoproblematizesomeofhiskeyideas.Forinstance,Halbfassalso

agreesthatthedifferentiationbetween‘neo’and‘traditional’isnotclear;“Hacker’stwo

categoriesarenotmutuallyexclusiveandnotalwaysclearlydistinguishable.Thereare

possibilitiesoftransition,overlaporcombination”(1988,p.220).However,heargues

thatitisbecausethese‘neo’and‘traditional’ideascanco-existharmoniouslyeven

withinasinglepersonthatresultsin:

thepeculiarambivalenceandrangeofvariationwhichmaybeseeninmodernIndianthought:orthodoxyandreceptivity,opennessandself-assertion,thenew

65

interpretationofindigenousconceptsandaHinduizationofWesternconcepts,alltheseintermixinavarietyofways(Hacker,1995,p.220).

Inhisopinion,tounderstand‘modernIndianthought’,itisnecessarytotracethe

developmentoforthodoxideasintothosewhichareconsidered‘neo’Hindu.Thisleads

himtomakeaninterestingobservation,wherebyhesuggeststhatinfact,Neo-Hindu

ideasarethemidwaypointbetweenorthodoxbeliefsandWesternizedtheories:

StandingbetweentraditionalismandorthodoxyontheonehandandameremimicryofWesternmodelsontheother,it[Neo-Hinduism]represents,sotospeak,thexenologicalcoreofmodernIndianthought(Hacker,1995,p.222).

HecontendsthatwhereasNeoHinduideas“mayindeedbecontrastedwith

traditionalism”itmakesmoresensetoseethemnotatoppositeendsofaspectrum,but

rather,astwoadjacentpointsonasingletrajectory.

PerhapsthereasonwhythisissuchanintriguingideaisthatHalbfassisarguing

againstthecommonlyheldbeliefthatNeo-HindusarethemostWesternizedHindus.

Instead,HalbfasscontestsHacker’sideasofbinaryconceptsandalternativelyoffersup

thesuggestionthatNeo-HindusmaysimplybejustafewshadesmoreWestern,orless

orthodox,butnotcompletelydifferententitiesasisoftentimesasserted.Unfortunately

however,heeventuallyconcludesthat,“[i]ngeneral,itisobviousthatHacker’sscheme

isasimplification,althoughausefulandconvenientone”(Hacker,1995,p.221).Whatis

problematicaboutthisstatementisthateventhoughHalbfassrecognizesthe

ambiguousnatureoftheselabels,andrepeatedlytriestoaddnuancestotheir

definitions,heneverthelessfeelscompelledtousethem,andevengoesasfaras

agreeingwithHackerthattheyare“usefulandconvenient.”Onecannothelpbutask;

“usefulandconvenient”forwho?Forscholarswhohavebecomeaccustomedtousing

them?Doesn’tthisinsistenceonthecontinueduseofquestionablelabelssuggesta

certainbias?WhyisHalbfasssointenttofindawaytowarranttheiruse?Isitbecause

66

WesternscholarshiphasgrownaccustomedtodescribingIndianideasandHindu

intellectualsinthismanner?Andperhapsmostimportantly,whyhaven’tIndianstoday

adoptedtheselabelsandmadethemtheirown?Afterall,whoseconveniencearewe

interestedin,andisconvenienceagoodenoughreasontocomplywiththestatusquo?

Halbfassargues:

Self-questioningandthecritiqueofEurocentricpreconceptionsarenecessaryingredientsofanyresponsiblestudyofIndia.However,theattempttoeliminateallwesternconstructsandpreconceptionsandtoliberatetheIndiantraditionfromallnon-Indiancategoriesofunderstandingwouldnotonlybeimpractical,butalsopresumptuousinitsownway.AlthoughitwouldseemtobediametricallyopposedtotheHegelianEurocentricmethodofsubordinatingandsupersedingnon-Europeantraditions,itwouldraisetheproblemofa“reverseEurocentrism”(2005,p.25,emphasisinoriginal).

Thismaybetrueincertaincases,particularlywhenthe‘natives’haveadoptedand

appropriatedsuchlabelsforthemselves,butthisisnotthecasehere.Indeed,onecould

arguethatHalbfass’observationsontheconnectivitybetweenthesetwocategories

shouldactuallycompelhimtodiscardtheselabelsbutthisisnotthestancethathe

takes.Fortunatelyhowever,thisdoesnotdiminishthevalueoftherestofhis

arguments,wherebyhedrawsinterestingconclusionsregardingcertainideasand

tendenciesthathebelieveswereveryinfluentialinthedevelopmentoftheHindu

identity.

Halbfassbeginsbybasinghistheoriesonabasicpremise,thatshouldbeself-

evident,butwhichhearguesisoftentimesignored:

TraditionalHinduismhasnotreachedoutfortheWest.Ithasnotbeendrivenbythezealofproselytizationanddiscovery,andbytheurgetounderstandandmasterforeigncultures.Ithasneitherrecognizedtheforeign,theotherasapossiblealternative,norasapotentialsourceofitsownidentity.“Ithasatnotimedefineditselfinrelationtotheother,noracknowledgedtheotherinitsunassimilableotherness.”IndiahasdiscoveredtheWestandbeguntorespondtoitinbeingsoughtout,explored,overrunandobjectifiedbyit.ItsinitialpositionintheencounterwasthatofatargetofEuropeaninterestsandexpectations.ItwasnotthecourseofIndianhistory,nottheinnerdynamismoftheHindutradition,thatledtotheencounter.Europeanstooktheinitiative.Theywentto

67

India.Thisisasimpleandfamiliarfact.YetitsfundamentalsignificanceofthehermeneuticsoftheencounterbetweenIndiaandtheWestisoftenforgotten(1988,p.172,emphasisinoriginal).

TheissuesthatHalbfassseemstobestrugglingwithrevolvearoundhisinterestin

uncoveringwhospeaksforthistradition,andwhy.ThisleadsHalbfasstoaseriesof

questionswhichaskhowonecanactuallydecidetherolethattraditionalideashave

played,whethertheyneedtobe‘reformed’andiftheyshould,infact,beconsideredto

bethe‘only’validvoiceofHinduIndia:

Canthosewhopreservethetraditionalschemesofknowledgenotjustascontentsofhistoricalawareness,butaswaysofseeingtheworld–canthoseguardiansandrepresentativesofthetraditionanditsauthoritativelanguageprovideitwithalivingpresence?Canthey,whospeakthelanguageofthetradition,alsospeakforitinthemodernworld?CantheypresentittotheWestandtheWesternizedworldwithoutsimplybeingusedassourcesofinformationorobjectsofhistoricalcuriosity?Cantheyinturncomprehendthisworldwithinthehorizonoftheirowninheritedknowledge?Dotheypossesstraditionalmeansofunderstandingwhicharesufficienttorespondtoandinterpretthemodernworld?Doesthetraditionitselfprovidesuchaframeworkofunderstanding?IsthetraditionoftheSanskritpanditsthemostauthenticformofsurvivaloftraditionalHinduism?AretheymorequalifiedtospeakforthetraditionthantheNeo-Hindus?Dotheyrepresentthecontinuedlifeandstrengthofthetradition–oritsfinalpetrification?(1988,pp.260-261)

ItiswithquestionslikethesethatHalbfassgetstotheheartofhisowninvestigation

whichtriestodeterminewhoisspeakingfortheHindus,whethertheyarequalifiedto

doso,andperhapsmostimportantly,ifthelensthatiscommonlyusedtoanalysethese

traditionsisusefulwhentryingtounderstandIndianideas.

OneofthemostinterestingobservationsthatHalbfassmakesisthathistorically,

Hindusdidnotengagewith‘other’invadingtraditionsinquitethesamemannerasthe

Westwasaccustomedto.HepointsoutthatearlyIndianphilosophersdidnotneedthe

foreign‘other’toformtheirownidentity.Instead,theseancientHinduscultivatedan

attitudewherebytheybelievedthattheyhadnothingtolearnfromthe‘mlecchas’

68

(foreigners)whorepeatedlyinvadedtheirterritories.Halbfasshighlightsancientand

medievalSanskritliteraturewhichseemtoimply:

WhyshouldaHinduwhoseeshimselfaspartofanall-inclusivetraditionandiscommittedtoatruthwhichistimelessandcompletebeinterestedinforeigncustomsandtraditions?Whyshouldheexploretheamorphousmultitudeofthecountriesofmlecchas?Whatcouldhepossiblylearnfromthem?Certainlynothingthatcouldaffecthisunderstandingofdharma–thesacrednorm,thehereafter,thosegoalsandmeansofhumanexistencewhicharenotaccessibletoempiricalknowledge.TheVedaistheonlylegitimatesourceoftransempiricalcognition(1988,pp.182-183).

Therearetwomainideasthatneedtobeunpackedhere.Ontheonehand,Halbfass

arguesthatIndianliteraturedoesnotreportonphilosophicalor‘religious’debatesand

indeedcouldbeaccused,inthisrespect,ofbeing“atraditionofsilenceandevasion”

(1988,p.182).Ontheotherhand,healsohighlightsthattheseSanskrittextsdidnot

simplyignorethephysicalexistenceoftheseothertraditions,nordidtheyfailto

recognizethesemlecchasas“ablesoldiers,craftsmen,artisans,etc.”(Halbfass,1988,

p.186).Thus,theforeignerswerenotcompletelyignored,butrather,onlytheir

efficiencyandskillwasacknowledgedinalimitedfashion.Incontrast,inmatters

regardingtradition,philosophyorsocialnorms,thesemlecchaswerenotallowedto

weighin;indeed,theywerenotevenconsideredviableopponents.Isitbecausethey

thoughttheseforeignerswereunworthy?Or,instead,asHalbfasssuggests,isitbecause

theyconsideredtheirworldviewtobesocompletethattheydidnotevenfeeltheneed

toconsiderthevalidityorvalueofexternalphilosophicalortraditionalconcepts?

AnotherinterestingideathatemergesfromHalbfass’explorationofthe

depictionofforeigners,inIndianliterature,istheideathattheVedas,inspiteofnot

beingthecentraltextsformanyHindus,servedasapointofdeparturefromwhich

Hinduscoulddescribetheirowntraditionalpositions:

regardlessofthehighlyelusiveandambiguousnatureofthehistoricalrelationshipbetweentheVedaandHinduism,theHindutraditionhas,formany

69

centuries,defineditselfinrelationtotheVeda…Wemayevensay:TherewouldbenoHinduismwithouttheVeda;itsidentityandrealitydependsupontheidea,orfiction,oftheVeda(2005,p.21).

HalbfassassertsthatevenifacertaingroupofHinduscompletelyrejectedtheVedas,

theirpositioncould,andoftentimeswas,evaluatedbyitsrelationshipwiththesetexts.

Consequently,hearguesthatformanyHindusects,theVedasactuallyprovidedthe

‘other’bywhichdifferentgroupsorganizedtheirownideas.Thiscouldexplainwhy

Hindutraditionsdidnotfinditnecessary,toevaluateorcomparethemselvestomleccha

philosophicalideas,toformtheirownidentity.Thisisespeciallysurprisingformany

scholarssinceitisanacceptedWesternnormtobelieve,thatitisbydefiningthe

external‘other’,thatoneisabletodefineoneself.Scholarshavearguedthatitisonly

withtheinvasionofWesterncolonialists,whoweredeeplyinvestedincomparing

Western‘religions’withEasternphilosophies,thatHindusfeltaneedtoforma

collectiveidentity.However,onecouldjustaseasilyarguethatthisdidnotnecessarily

implythatHindusdidnothaveaninternalconnectivitywitheachother(albeita

negativeoneinmanycases)whichallowedthemtoformacollectiveidentity;a

collectiveidentitythatwaseventuallylabelled‘Hinduism’.Indeed,Halbfasscontends:

Itisimportant,however,nottooverlookthetraditional,premoderndimensionsofunityandidentity,contextualityandcoherence,andthecentripetalandinclusiveelementsinwhatW.CantwellSmithcallsthe“luxuriantwelter”oftraditionalHindulife.Tobesure,thisisnotthedogmaticandinstitutionalidentityofan“organizedreligion”;butontheotherhand,itisneitheran“Orientalistconstruction,”norcanitbereducedtoaBrahmanicalfictionorprojection(2005,p.27).

HalbfassisinvestedinensuringthatHinduagency,inthedevelopmentoftheirown

identity,shouldnotbeignored.Indeed,heisparticularlyinterestedinaffirmingthatthe

label‘Hinduism’,whoseancestryandoriginsarerepeatedlychallenged,shouldnotbe

discarded.ByexploringtherelationshipsthatIndianshadwiththeirmlecchainvaders,

70

hearguesforthevalidityofhiscontentionthatthelabel‘Hinduism’isnotonethatwas

simplyappliedbyforeignmlecchainvaders:

Themodernideaof“Hinduism,”orofthe“Hindureligion,”isareinterpretationofthetraditionalideasand,inasense,ahybridizationofthetraditionalself-understanding.Yetitisbynomeansamereadaptationofwesternsuperimpositions.Itisalsoacontinuationofthetradition,anexpressionandtransformationofthatself-understandingwhicharticulatesitselfinitscommitmenttotheVedicrevelation.ItisthiscommitmentthatprovidesthefocusfortraditionalHinduself-understanding,andthatprovidesaparadigmandexemplaryprecedentevenforthosemovementsthatpaylittleattentiontotheVedicrevelation,ortrytosupersedeandreplaceit(Halbfass,2005,p.28).

Itshouldnotcomeasasurprisethenthatthisparticularassertionaboutthevalidityof

thelabel‘Hinduism’,itsorigins,anditscontinuedapplicabilitytomodernHindu

thought,hasbeenthecruxofnumerousarguments.Anotherscholarwhohasdonea

considerableamountofresearchonthisissueisDavidLorenzen.

DavidLorenzen

Inhisessay“WhoInventedHinduism?”(2005)DavidLorenzenattemptsto

unravelsomeoftheargumentsthatscholarshavemaderegardingthelegitimacyofthis

label‘Hinduism’andthepeoplewhoareaccreditedwith,orwhotakecreditfor,its

‘invention’.LorenzenbeginsbyseparatingscholarsonHindutraditionsintotwo

distinctcategories.Inthefirstgroup,heplacesthosewho:

haveputforwardtheclaimthatHinduismwasconstructed,invented,orimaginedbyBritishscholarsandcolonialadministratorsinthenineteenthcenturyanddidnotexist,inanymeaningfulsense,beforethisdate.Prominentamongscholarswhohavemadethisconstructionistargument,ifIcancallitthat,areVasudhaDalmia(1995),RobertFrykenberg(1989),ChristopherFuller(1992),JohnHawley(1991),GeraldLarson(1995),HarjotOberoi(1994),BrianSmith(1989)andHeinrichvonStietencron(1995and1997)(Lorenzen,2005,p.52).

Lorenzenchoosestohighlightsomeofthesescholarssincetheyhavemadestrong

statementsindefenceoftheirpositions.Forexample,HeinrichvonStietencronargues:

71

Hinduismintoto,withvariouscontradictingsystemsandalltheresultinginconsistencies,certainlydoesnotmeetthefundamentalrequirementsforahistoricalreligionofbeingacoherentsystem(2005,p.46).

RobertFrykneberggoesevenfurtherwhenhestates:

Acontinuedandblindacceptanceofthisconcept[Hinduism]–nottomentionanuncriticalbutalltoocommonholdingofmanyunderlyingassumptionsaboutitduringthepastcentury–isnotonlyerroneous,but,Iwouldargue,itisdangerous(2005,p.82).

ButperhapstheworstargumentcomesfromJohnHawleywhocontends:

Hinduism–thewordandperhapstherealitytoo-wasborninthe19thcentury,anotoriouslyillegitimatechild.Thefatherwasmiddle-classandBritish,andthemother,ofcourse,wasIndia(1991,p.20).

Thisinsensitivevisualizationof‘Hinduism’asan“illegitimatechild”,andofIndiaasa

motherofquestionablemorals,isexactlythekindofargumentthathascausedsucha

furoreoverthelegitimacyoftheuseofthislabel.Assuch,itisdisappointingthat

Lorenzenregardsitas“oneofthewittiest”(2005,p.55)analogiesmadebyrecent

scholars.Thatbeingsaidhowever,Lorenzenperceiveshimselfasbelongingtothe

opposingteamofscholars:

Ontheothersideoftheargumentareseveralscholarswhohavedirectlyquestionedthisclaimfromvariouspointsofview.TheyincludeLawrenceA.Babb(1986),WendyDoniger(1991),GabrieallaEichingerFerro-Luzzi(1989),AlfHiltebeitel(1991),CynthiaTalbot(1995),ThomasTrautman(1997),PetervanderVeer(1994),andmyself(1995)(2005,p.53).

Consideringthisstance,itisfittingthatLorenzendedicatestherestofhisessaytotry

anddemonstratethatthe:

claimthatHinduismwasinventedorconstructedbyEuropeancolonizers,mostlyBritish,sometimeafter1800isfalse.TheevidenceinsteadsuggeststhataHindureligiontheologicallyanddevotionallygroundedintextssuchastheBhagavad

Gita,thePuranas,andphilosophicalcommentariesonthesixdarshanasgraduallyacquiredamuchsharperself-consciousidentitythroughtherivalrybetweenMuslimsandHindusintheperiodbetween1200and1500,andwasfirmlyestablishedlongbefore1800(Lorenzen,2005,p.53).

72

Ontheotherhand,Lorenzenisalsoquicktoclarifythatthisdoesnotimplythat

hebelievesthatthelabel‘Hinduism’wasusedextensivelybeforethearrivalofthe

Westerners.Instead,heagreeswithothercontemporaryscholarswhohaveshownhow

“theword‘Hinduism’becamecommoninEnglishonlyinthesecondquarterofthe

nineteenthcentury,andmostlyinbooksbyBritishauthors”(Lorenzen,2005,p.54).

AccordinglyLorenzenstates:

Inasearchthroughseveralearlynineteenth-centuryjournals,Imanagedtofindoneexampleoftheword“Hinduism”(witha“u”)inaletterpublishedinthe1818volumeofTheAsiaticJournalandMonthlyRegister(London)andnolessthansevenexamples(alsowitha“u”)inanarticlebyJohnCrawfurdonHinduisminBali,publishedinthe1820volumeofAsiatickResearchesofCalcutta.MoresignificantaretwoappearancesoftheterminEnglishlanguagetextsbyRammohanRoypublishedin1816and1817,whichhavebeennotedanddiscussedrecentlybyDermotKillingley(1993)(2005,p.53-54).

Interestingly,partsofthisargumenthaverecentlybeenrefutedbyGeoffreyA.Oddie

whohasshownthatCharlesGrant,adirectoroftheEastIndiaCompany:

wasoneofthefirstEuropeans(ifnotthefirst)tousetheterm‘Hindooism’inbothhisprivateandsemi-officialcorrespondence.HeusedthetermincorrespondencewithThomasRaikesinSeptember1787(2006,p.71).

Oddiemakesaninterestingobservationwhenhecontends:

AlsosignificantisthefactthatGrantseemstohaveassumedthatanEngland-basedrecipientofhisletterwouldalreadyunderstandthemeaningofthewordwhenheuseditinhislettertoRaikesinEnglandinSeptember1787(2006,p.71).

Ironically,Oddie’scommentsstrengthenLorenzen’sargumentthat‘Hinduism’wasnot

constructedinthenineteenthcentury.Assuch,itisespeciallypuzzlingthat,despite

beingawareofGrant’swork,whichhementionsinhisessay(Lorenzen,2005,p.61),

Lorenzenfailstomakethisconnectionhimself.Particularlysincethisisthecruxof

Lorenzen’sargument,wherebyheismostinterestedindemonstratingthateventhough

ithadn’tbeenlabelled‘Hinduism’,theideaof‘Hinduism’waswidelyprevalentbefore

Britishcolonization.

73

Tomakehispoint,Lorenzenarguesthat‘constructionist’scholarshave

privilegedthegeo-culturaldefinitionoftheword‘Hindu’,whereashebelievesthislabel

carriedstrongreligiousimplicationsaswell:

everyoneagreesthatthewordderivesfromSindhu,thenativenamefortheriverIndus.ThereisalsoaconsensusthatthenameSindhubecame“Hind”or“Hindu”inPersianlanguagesandthenre-enteredIndianlanguagesas“Hindu,”originallywiththesenseofaninhabitantofthelandsnearandtotheeastoftheIndus.MostproponentsoftheBritishconstructionofHinduism,notsurprisinglybeginbystressingthisgeographicaletymologyandthensimplydenythatuseoftheword“Hindu”inareligioussensewasofanyimportanceuntilthenineteenthcentury(2005,p.57).

Incontrast,thebasisofLorenzen’sargumentisthat,beforetheWesterncolonizers

arrived,theHindusalreadyhadacollectiveidentitythathadbeennecessaryintheface

ofMuslimdomination.Hecontendsthatthedesignation‘Hindu’,wasnotatermsimply

usedforgeographicalandethnicreasonssincethiswouldimply,bydefault,thatthe

MuslimswhohadsettledinIndia,orthosewhohadconvertedtoIslam,shouldalso

havebeencalledHindus.

WhatthenofthevastmajorityofMuslimsinIndiawhowereindigenousconvertsoflow-casteHinduorigin?If“Hindu”remainedapurelyethno-geographicalterm,exceptperhapsintheeyesofafewMuslimintellectuals,atleasttheseconvertsshouldhavebeencalled“Hindus”or“HinduMuslims.”Thereisinfactlittleornoevidencethatthiseverhappened(Lorenzen,2005,p.58).

ThisfactiscontestedbyFrykenbergwhoasserts:

Inthissensereferenceto“Hindoo”Christiansor“Hindoo”Muslims–namelyreferencestoChristiansandMuslims,etc.,ofIndiawhowerecharacteristicallyanddistinctively‘Hindoo”orIndianintheircultureandstyleoflife–arenotuncommon(2005,p.85).35

PerhapsLorenzenfeelsjustifiedinignoringthesecases,whereChristiansorMuslims

wereassignedthisprefix‘Hindu’,duetotheirnegligiblenumbers(incomparisontothe

35Furthermore,inapersonalemailexchangewithDr.FrykenbergdatedOctober,21st,2011,whereIaskedforclarificationonhowhecametothisconclusion,hestatedthattheseideaswereminedfrompetitionersintheManuscriptDistrictRecordsregardingtheregionsTinnevellyandTanjorebetweentheperiods1790to1835.

74

majoritywhowerenotlabelledinthisfashion).Instead,hebaseshisargumentsonthe

premise,wherebyconvertswerenotcalledHinduMuslimsorHinduChristians,and

investigatesnumerousaccountsof‘Hinduism’thathavebeenrecordeddatingbackto

thefifteenthcentury.Hearguesthattherearethreemainsourcesfortheseaccounts;

European,HinduandMuslim.Lorenzencontendsthateventhoughthereare“three

differentmasternarratives;onemetaphysical,onehistoricalandoneclassificatory”

(2005,p.58)however:

thereisalmostnotextonHinduismthatfollowsanyonemodelexclusively.Nonetheless,thedominantmodelisundoubtedlythehistoricalone,andoneofthefirstfully-developedexamplesofthismodelispresentedinMonierMonier-Williams’influentialbookHinduism,firstpublishedin1877andlaterreprintedinseveralrevisededitions.Theimportanceofthistextjustifies,Ithink,takingitsaccountofHinduismasa“standardmodel”ofthereligion(2005,p.59).

ThisisimportantbecauseLorenzenthengoesontodemonstratehowthedifferent

historiesof‘Hinduism’,precedingthistext,allsharecommontraitswiththis‘standard

model’therebybelyingthenotionthattheideaofacollectiveHinduidentitydidnot

existearlier.Thus,Lorenzenquestions:

When,then,didBritishandotherEuropeanobserversfirstidentifyHinduism–whethercalledHinduism,HindureligionorreligionoftheHindus–asasinglesetofreligiousbeliefsandpractices?Ihavealreadymentionedthe1820articlebyJohnCrawfurdasoneoftheearliestsourcestousetheword“Hinduism.”WhatisalsointerestingisthefactthatCrawfurdusestheterms“Hinduism,”“Hindureligion,”and“Hindus”inthecontextofBali,wheretheHindusareclearlynotIndiansinanyracialorethno-geographicalsense.WhatIwanttoshowhere,however,isthatvirtuallyallofthemorescholarlyobserversamongtheEuropeanvisitorsandresidentsinIndiabefore1800hadidentifiedHinduismasadiversebutidentifiablesetofbeliefsandpracticesclearlydistinguishedfromIslam,and,lessclearly,fromtheSikhandParsireligionsaswell(2005,p.61).

BychartingoutthedifferentEuropeanreportsanddocumentsthatdescribeHindu

religioustraditions,LorenzensuccessivelyillustrateshowBritishscholarsand

administratorscannotbetheonlyEuropeansaccreditedwiththe‘construction’of

Hinduism.Instead,heidentifiesProtestant,Catholic,Portuguese,Spanishand

75

missionaryaccounts,eachwithdifferentperspectivesandagendas,butnevertheless

describingHinduideasinarelativelysimilarmanner;allofwhicharecomparativeto

MonierWilliams’‘standardmodel’:

ThefactthatvirtuallyallEuropeanaccounts–whateverthelanguageorperiodinwhichtheywerewritten,andwhetherornottheyarelikelytohavemutuallyinfluencedeachother–followthissamegeneraloutlinesuggeststhattheEuropeanwriterswereinfact“constructing”Hinduismdirectlyonthebasisofwhattheyobservedandwhattheyweretoldbytheirnativeinformants.TheseinformantswereinturnsimplysummarizingaconstructionofHinduismthat

alreadyexistedintheirowncollectiveconsciousness.ThisdoesnotmeanthatHinduismwasunchangedduringthisperiod,northattheEuropeanandcolonialpresencedidnotfosterimportantchangesinthewayHinduismwasconceptualizedbytheHindusthemselves,butitdoesclearlyshowthattheideathatHinduismwasconstructedorinventedbynineteenthcenturyEuropeansismistaken(Lorenzen,2005,pp.67-68,emphasisinoriginal).

Ofcourse,onecouldarguethatthereasonwhytheEuropeansgleanedthesame

informationfromtheirnativeinformantswasbecausetheywereapproachingthese

traditionswiththeirownculturalbaggage.And,assuch,wereaskingthesame

questionsandlookingforthesameanswers.AsifinresponsetothisLorenzenturnshis

attentiontotherelevantHindusources.Interestingly,LorenzenpicksuponHalbfass’

argument,thatpremodernSanskritsourcesminimizedtheiraccountoftheMuslim

presenceand,assuch,LorenzenagreesthatitishardtoignoreHalbfass’suggestionthat

thesetextswereguiltyofa“self-imposedculturalisolation”(2005,p.69).However,

Lorenzenarguesthatwhereasitmaybetruethatthesetextsrefusedtoengage

extensivelywiththeMuslim‘other’,itwasalsotruethatvernacularliteraturedidnot

operateunderthesamepretexts:

Thebulkofthisevidencetakestheformoftextscomposedbythepopularreligiouspoet-singersofNorthIndia,mostofthemmembersofnon-Brahmincastes.ThisliteraturedoespreciselywhatSanskritliteraturerefusestodo:itestablishesaHindureligiousidentitythroughaprocessofmutualself-definitionwithacontrastingMuslimOther(2005,p.70).

76

Bydescribingthevariousreferencesthatweremadetothe‘MuslimOther’,Lorenzen

highlightsnumerouswaysinwhichtheseearlyHindupoetsdemonstratedacollective

identitywhichtheydidn’tcall‘Hinduism’,but,whichcouldbereadbackasjustthat.For

example,heusesquotesfromthereligioussongsoftheIndianpoetKabirwholived

approximatelybetweentheyears1450and1520A.D:

WhoisaHindu,whoaTurk?Bothmustshareasingleworld.

KoranorVedas,bothreadtheirbooks(ascitedinLorenzen,2005,p.72))

Furthermore,Lorenzenpointsoutthatina“historicalromancecalledKirtilata”atext

thatwaswrittenapproximately“ahundredyearsbeforeKabir,”thereisareference

madetothedhamme(dharma)oftheHindusandtheTurkswhich“apparentlymean[t]

somethingquitecloseto‘religionoftheHindus’and‘religionoftheMuslims’”(2005,

p.73).

Naturally,thisraisesquestionsabouttheverydefinitionof‘dhamme’,ordharma,

andwhetheritwasusedinthesamewayas‘religion’36or,ifinfact,ithadother

definitionsthatcouldbeappliedtoitasHackerhasalreadyhighlighted.Indeed,because

Lorenzentranslatesitas‘religion’wegettowhatmightbeacrucialproblemwithhis

argument.ThisneedofLorenzen’s,todefine‘dhamme’as‘religion’,aWesterninfused

label,underminessomeoftheemphasishelaysontheneedtoacceptthat‘Hinduism’

maybeanativeconstruct.Afterall,LorenzencontendsthattherewasacollectiveHindu

identityandheoffersupconsiderableevidencetosupportthisclaim.Moreover,this

collectiveidentityiscomparabletowhatLorenzencallsthe‘standardmodel’of

Hinduism.LorenzenevendemonstratesthatthefamousPersianhistorian,Al-Biruni,

hasanaccountofthe‘religion’thathefoundontheIndiansubcontinentwhichis

36ApointthatBankimchandrarefutesinthefirstchapter.

77

remarkablylikethe‘standardmodel’accreditedtoMonier-Williamsapproximately

sevenhundredyearslater(2005,p.75).However,onecannothelpbutwonderifthose

whoapparentlyhadthiscollectiveidentity,i.e.theHindus,wouldhaveacceptedthis

‘standardmodel’orifinstead,asHalbfasshassuggestedwiththeVedas,theywould

haveidentifiedthemselvesinrelationtoit,byacceptingsomeofitsnorms,andrejecting

others.Indeed,itisonlywiththearrivaloftheBritishthatthiswebofideashadtobe

concretized,wherebywallswereputuparoundthe‘religion’called‘Hinduism’.

So,inasense,onecouldarguethatitwasnotthataHinduidentitydidnotexist,

butthatforthefirsttimeinhistory,thismassivebodyofintertwinedideaswasbeing

forcedintoaboxcalled‘religion’,underthesubheadingof‘Hinduism’.Thequestion

thenarisesastowhythislabel,whichsimplynamesthiscollectiveidentity,andcallsit

‘Hinduism’shouldbediscarded.Instead,shouldn’twediscardtheparametersthatare

setfor‘Hinduism’bysomescholars?Onecouldarguethatitisnotthetermthatisthe

problem;itistheneedtouseWesterntheoretictoolstodefineitthatisthereal

problem.Thus,whereasLorenzenisconvincinginhisargumentthat‘Hinduism’existed

beforetheBritisharrived,unfortunatelyheisnotabletobreakfromhisneedto

describeitasa“singlereligiouscommunity”(2005,p.54)ratherthanasamulti-layered

pluralyetconnectedidentity.Sothequestionisnot‘whoinventedHinduism?’or“who

constructedHinduism?”butratherwhythisidentitydoesnotconformtoWestern

religiousmodels.ThesearesomeofthequestionswhichRichardKingseemstobe

grapplingwith.

RichardKing

InOrientalismandReligion(1999),RichardKingarguesthat‘Hinduism’has

cometorepresentanideathatdidnotexist,inthisform,beforecolonialism.Assuch,he

78

endeavourstoshedsomelightontherolethatWesternOrientalismhasplayedinthe

developmentanddefinitionofthisterm:

Thenotionof‘Hinduism’isitselfaWestern-inspiredabstraction,whichuntilthenineteenthcenturyborelittleornoresemblancetothediversityofIndianreligiousbeliefsandpractice(King,1999,p.98).

KingseeminglytakesanopposingstancefromLorenzen:

Theterm‘Hinduism’,whichofcoursederivesfromthefrequencywithwhich‘Hindu’cametobeused,isaWesternexplanatoryconstruct.AssuchitreflectsthecolonialandJudeo-ChristianpresuppositionsoftheWesternOrientalistswhofirstcoinedtheterm(1999,p.100).

Moreover,helamentsthefactthatscholarsofOrientalism,suchasDavidKopfare:

seeminglyunawareoftheEurocentricagendaunderlyingitandtheextenttowhichthesuperimpositionofthemonolithicentityof‘Hinduism’uponIndianreligiousmaterialhasdistortedandperhapsirretrievablytransformedIndianreligiosityinaWesternizeddirection(King,1999,p.100).

Whatisimportanttonotehowever,isthatKingisnotsimplyaskingscholarstodiscard

thelabel‘Hinduism’.Rather,heurgesthemtounderstandthatwhentheyusethislabel

theyare,inallactuality,usingatermthathasbeenshapedbyWesternideologyandas

such,“themodernconceptionofHinduismisindeedamoderndevelopment”(King,

1999,p.101,emphasisinoriginal).Whatthissignifies,forKing,isthat‘Hinduism’,asit

cametobeusedbytheBritishcolonialistsandthenativeelites,wasdeeplyinfluenced

bythecategoriesthatwereprivilegedbyWesternconceptsof‘religion’.Thisisreflected

inthefactthattextssuchastheDharmasastras,theVedas,theBhagavad-Gitaandthe

Puranasallcametooccupyapivotalroleinthecreationofthiscategory;atextual

emphasisthatwasnotevidenttosuchadegreeinearliertimeswhenpracticeandritual

playedacentralrole.Furthermore,heassertsthatsincetheseWesternideaswere

themselvesstronglyinfluencedbyChristianvalues,theresultwasa‘construction’of

‘Hinduism’thatboreastrongerresemblancetothe‘religion’oftheiroppressorsrather

thantothetraditionalideasoftheirancestors:

79

ManyoftheearlyEuropeantranslatorsofIndiantextswerealsoChristianmissionaries,who,intheirtranslationsandcriticaleditionsofIndianworks,effectivelyconstructeduniformtextsandahomogenizedwrittencanonthroughtheimpositionofWesternphilologicalstandardsandpresuppositionsontoIndianmaterials.Thustheoraland‘popular’aspectofIndianreligioustraditionwaseitherignoredordecriedasevidenceofthedegradationofcontemporaryHindureligionandsuperstitiouspracticesthatborelittleornorelationto‘theirown’texts(King1999,p.101).

Inadditiontothisemphasisontextualauthority,Orientalistswerealsoinclinedtolook

foranecclesiasticalhierarchy,amodelwithwhichtheywerefamiliar,andtheelite

brahminsfilledthisrequirementperfectly.Kinghighlightsthefactthatthecombined

effectoftextualemphasis,andtheneedforanativehierarchicalsupportsystem,

resultedintheprivilegingofthebrahmincastewho,asaresult,benefittedbothsocially

aswellaseconomically.

Thequestionthatarisesthenisastowhytheothercastes,sectsandreligious

groups,whosepracticesandphilosophydidnotplaysuchapivotalroleintheformation

ofthismodern‘religion’called‘Hinduism’,didnotobjectstronglyandresistthis

brahmin‘takeover’.King,agreeingwithscholarslikeHeinrichvonStietencronand

RobertFrykenbergbeforehim,arguesthatthereasonwhyalargeportionoftheIndian

intellectualcommunitywasamenabletothissituationwasbecausethisallowedthemto

presentaunitedfrontintheirstruggleforfreedom,byclaiminganationalidentity,that

boundthemtogether,i.e.‘Hinduism’.Accordingly,KingconcurswithvonStietencron:

westernstudentssawHinduismasaunity.TheIndianshadnoreasontocontradictthis;tothemthereligiousandculturalunitydiscoveredbywesternscholarswashighlywelcomeintheirsearchfornationalidentityintheperiodofstrugglefornationalunion(ascitedinKing,1999,p.103).

Furthermore,KingalsoremindsusthataccordingtoFrykenberg:

Brahminshavealwayscontrolledinformation.Thatwastheirboast.Itwastheywhohadprovidedinformationonindigenousinstitutions[forWesternOrientalists].Itwastheywhoprovidedthisonascalesounprecedentedthat,atleastatthelevelofAll-Indiaconsciousness,anewreligionemergedthelikesofwhichIndiahadperhapsneverknownbefore(ascitedinKing,1999,p.104).

80

Kingdemonstrateshowthisquestforanational,unitedfront,resultedintheemergence

ofa‘Hinduism’thatdidnot,andcouldnot,correspondwithwhathadexistedbeforethe

arrivaloftheWesternOrientalists.Consequently,heagreeswiththeIndianhistorian

RomilaThaparwhenshecontends:

thisnewHinduism,furnishedwithabrahmanicalbase,wasmergedwithelementsof‘uppercastebeliefandritualwithoneeyeontheChristianandIslamicmodels’,andwasthoroughlyinfusedwithapoliticalandnationalisticemphasis(King,1999,p.104).

Furthermore,hearguesthatthis‘Hinduism’had:

thetendencytoemphasizeVedicandbrahmanicaltextsandbeliefsascentralandfoundationaltothe‘essence’ofHinduism,andinthemodernassociationof‘Hindudoctrine’withthevariousbrahmanicalschoolsoftheVedanta(inparticular,AdvaitaVedanta)(King,1999,pp.102-103).

AccordingtoKing,thisisproblematic,andneedstoaddressed,becausethis‘essential

Hinduism’was,inactuality,mimickingthebeliefsandideasoftheAbrahamic‘religions’

withwhichitwascompeting,andwithwhomitwantedtostandasanequalmemberin

thecategoryof‘worldreligions’:

Thisreflectsthetendency,duringandafterEuropeancolonialism,forIndianreligiontobeconceivedbyWesternersandIndiansthemselvesinamannerconducivetoJudeo-Christianconceptionsofthenatureofreligion,aprocessthatVeenaDashasdescribedasthe‘semification’ofHinduisminthemodernera.Thus,sincethenineteenthcentury,‘Hinduism’hasdeveloped,andisnotablefor,anumberofnewcharacteristics,whichseemtohaveariseninresponsetoJudeo-Christianpresuppositionsaboutthenatureofreligion(1999,p.104).

Atfirstglance,itappearsasifheisofferinguptheopposingargumentto

Lorenzensinceheisquitefirminhisbeliefthattheterm‘Hinduism’isproblematic.

However,oneshouldbewaryofsimplycategorizingthesetwoscholarsasopposing

counsel.Onthehand,itdoesseemasifKingwoulddisagreewithLorenzen’sargument

thatthe‘standardmodel’of‘Hinduism’,thatMonier-Williamsfirstpublishedin1877,

wasalreadyevidentcenturiesbeforethearrivaloftheBritish.Ontheotherhand,

whereasthis‘standardmodel’maynotresonatewithKing,heisnotdenyingLorenzen’s

81

argumentthattherewasacollectiveorconnectedidentitythatexistedbeforethe

arrivaloftheBritish.Instead,Kingarguesthatthisidentityhasbeenmisrepresented,

duetocolonization,andthesubsequentinsistencethatthisIndianidentitybemadeto

conformwithWesternreligiousideasandcategories.Heassertsthatthe‘religion’that

isdescribedbytheterm‘Hinduism’doesnot,infact,accuratelyreflectthetraditionsof

theHindumasses.Thisnaturallyresultsinanobviousneedforfurtheranalysisand

interpretation,aneedthatheisawareof.

Kingpresentsaninterestingsolutionin“Colonialism,Hinduismandthe

DiscourseofReligion”(2010).Accordingtohim,onewaytoresolvethisissuewouldbe

torecognizethat,unlikeWesternreligioustraditions,whichtendtooperateundera

centripetalmodel,Indiantraditionsarebetterdescribedbyacentrifugal,orperhaps,a

polycentricmodel.HearguesthatWesternreligioustraditionsoperateunder“a

profoundlycentripetaldynamicthatseekstoovercomedifferenceandpluralityand

unifyallmembersofthegroupunderacommonrubric”(King,2010,p.106).However,

oneshouldbecautiousofsuchtendencies:

Whymustcivilizationbeseenascentripetallyorganizedintermsofunitaryidentity-relationstobeaccordedculturalrespect?Howmightonemovetoportraynon-westerncivilizationaltraditionsinthepublicsphereinawaythatresiststheframingofdiscussionsabout‘Hinduism’intermsofthebinarylogicofits‘samenessordifference’inrelationtoChristianity(orsay,Islam)?(King,2010,p.107).

Heanswersthesequestionsbyarguingthatthecentripetalmodelisnotconduciveto

Indicideas.Assuch,newerways,whichdonotprivilegeWesternexplanatorymodels,

shouldbeexplored.Furthermore,accordingtohim,Indiantraditionsare,inactuality,

oneofthebestexamplesofsuchanalternativemethod:

Iwouldcontendthatacentripetalmono-logicofthiskind,withitsconcerntomaintainhomogeneityandanon-porousandbounded,unitaryidentityinthefaceof‘theother’(whetherlabelledheterodox,pagan,heathen,or‘otherworldreligion’)hasnotbeenthedominantmodelinoperationinIndicidentity-

82

formation.ThisisnottosaythatIndicmovementshavehadnointerestinconstructinganidentityinoppositionto‘others’(mlecchas;varna-jati;

brahmanic-Srmanicclassificationsetc.),butratherthatthelackofasingledominantecclesiasticalinstitution(suchastheChurch)withinIndiansocietyresultedinmodelsthattookaccommodation,pluralityandacertaindegreeofinteractiveboundary-porousness(whatintheWesthasoftenbeenpejorativelylabelled‘syncretism’)asnormative.Rejectingthecentripetalmodelembeddedindominantwesternassumptionsabout‘religion’whenspeakingofanIndiancontextdoesnotentailtherepresentationofIndiantraditionsas‘chaotic,undifferentiatedcollectionsofreligiousbeliefsandpractices(Lorenzen2007),unlessoneisunwillingtothinkbeyondthekindof(false)binaryoppositionthroughwhichmono-logicalsystemsofrepresentationoperate–where‘unitary’and‘chaoticandundifferentiated’becometheonlypossibleconceptualoptions(King,2010,p.107-108,emphasisinoriginal).

Nonetheless,heisreluctanttosimplycalltheseIndianreligioustendenciescentrifugal,

becausehewantstoavoidsettingupbinarycategoriesthatcouldleadbacktothevery

issuesheisarguingagainst.Instead,hesuggestsadoptingJuliusLipner’s(1996)

suggestiontoapproachIndianreligioustraditionsasapolycentricmodelthatdoesnot

easilyslipintoWesternmonolithiccategories(2010,p.108).

Thatbeingsaid,however,wearestillleftwiththedilemmaofnaming;adilemma

thatKingisnotunawareofbutforwhichhedoesn’tofferanysolutions.Thisis

importantbecauseHindus,bothinIndiaandinthediaspora,havecometoidentifywith

thislabel‘Hinduism’,atitlethatnamestheirtraditionalideasandpractices.Now,

scholarsarefreetoarguethatthe‘concept’thatthislabelidentifiesissimplyamyth.

However,thisparticularmythhasbecometherealitybywhichHindustodaynotonly

livetheirlivesbutalsounderstandtheirownhistory.Therefore,whereasthislabeldoes

notconformtotheparametersthathavebeensetbyWesterntraditions,itis,

nevertheless,awaymanyHindushavecometounderstandtheirowntraditions,amyth

whichhelpstodefinetheiridentity.Kingaddressesthisideaof‘myth’in“The

associationof‘religion’withviolence”(2007).Here,heisnotusingtheword‘myth’in

thenegativewaythatithasoftentimesbeenusedinpopularliterature,andasitis

83

definedintheOxforddictionary;“afictitiousorimaginarypersonorthing;awidely-

heldbutfalsebelieforidea;amisrepresentationofthetruth”(OxfordDictionaries).

Instead,heisutilizingtheword‘myth’muchinthesamewaythatPierreBourdieuuses

theword‘doxa’,whichisatermhecoinedtodescribetheworldviewofapeople

whereby:

theestablishedcosmologicalandpoliticalorderisperceivednotasarbitrary,i.e.asonepossibleorderamongothers,butasaself-evidentandnaturalorderwhichgoeswithoutsayingandthereforegoesunquestioned(Bourdieu,1972,p.166).

KingconcurswithBourdieuwhoargues:

adoxaoccurswhenaparticulartaxonomicsystempresentsitselfascorrespondingto‘nature’–thewaythingsreallyare,ratherthanasaculturallyconstructedartifice.Itisconstitutedbythatwhichistakenforgrantedinaspecificsocialsetting,thatwhichremainsliterallyunquestionablebecauseitsarbitraryandsociallyconstructedoriginshavebeenoccluded.Doxaformstheunquestionedtruthorauthoritythatframestheverypossibilitiesofthoughtitself–thestageuponwhichorthodoxiesandheterodoxiescanbeplayedoutaccordingtoasetofrulesandassumptionsthatnoneoftheparticipantsquestion(2007,p.229).ThisappearstobewhatKingisimplyingwhenhearguesthat‘Hinduism’isa

myththatwascreatedbyboththeWesternscholarsandnativeelites,butwhichnow

presentsitselfasaneternal‘religion’beyondthelimitsofhistory.BourdieuandKing’s

argumentsindicatethatcertainworldviews,becomesodeeplyembeddedintothe

psycheofthepeople,thattheyarenotchallengedbecause“thequestionstheyanswer

cannotbeexplicitlyasked”(Bourdieu,1972,p.168).Thus,onecouldarguethatthe

questionsthatwouldneedtobeaskedoftheHindupublic,regardingtheircollective

identityandsharedtraditions,areonesthataresodeeplyembeddedthattheycould

threatentheveryfabricoftheirself-identity;particularlywhenfacedwithpresenting

theirideastonon-Indians.Onceagainwemustconsiderwhetheritisthislabel

‘Hinduism’thattheHindususetodescribetheirtraditionsthatisfaulty,or,ifinstead,it

84

isthecategoryintowhichtheyaresupposedtofitthatistheproblem.Indeed,couldit

bethatifweredefine‘religion’usingcategoriessuchascentripetal,centrifugaland

polycentric,wemaybeabletoaddresssomeoftheseissues?Ofcourse,onecouldalso

arguethatthisdoesnotresolvethefactthatmanyaspectsofHindutraditionsarenot

includedinthemainstreamdefinitionof‘Hinduism’,which,inturn,oftentimesleads

themtobeleftoutbypopulartextbooksandtestimonies.37Fortunately,scholars,on

bothsidesofthefence,areactivelytryingtorectifythisdeficiencyandthistrend,to

privilegeWesterntoolsandcategories,isdecreasing.AsfortheIndianmasses,one

mightarguethatwhereastheymayspoutVedanticidealswhenpushedbyoutsidersto

defineorencapsulatetheirpracticesandideas,theydonotusuallyreplicatethisintheir

personalandpubliclives.Forexample,HindufestivalslikeGaneshaChaturtiorDurga

Puja,displayapanoramaofGodsintheirpolytheisticglorybeingcelebratedasdistinct

identitieswithnoapparentevidenceofmonolithic,monotheisticorAdvaiticprinciples

present.IsthisatruetestimonyofthecomplextraditionsthatHinduscalltheirown?Or

instead,isthehistorianRomilaThaparaccuratewhenshelabelsthesetraditions,calling

them‘SyndicatedHinduism’,adoxathathasbeencreatedbytheHinduelite.Itistoher

argumentsthatwemustnowturn.

RomilaThapar

Inheressay,“SyndicatedHinduism”(2005)RomilaThaparopensherdiscussion

bytryingtodistinguishwhat‘Brahmanism’means,especiallywhencomparedtoits

37VasudhaNarayananaddresseshowtextbooksoftentimesmisrepresent,orsimplyignore,crucialaspectsofHindutraditions;anissuethatwewillreturntointhefinalchapter.

85

apparentopposite,‘Sramanism’.AccordingtoThapar,‘Brahmanism’hasitsrootsinthe

Vedas:

TheVediccompositionseveniftheymightincorporateelementsoftheearlierreligion,emphasizethecentralroleofthesacrificialritualoftheyajna,aresuggestiveofsomeelementsofshamanism,includeagamutofdeitieswherethebrahmanaistheintermediarytothegodsandworshipfocusesonritualswithoutimages.BecauseofthepivotalroleofthebrahmanaitissometimesreferredtoasthebeginningsofBrahmanicalHinduismtodistinguishitfromotherimportantformsofHinduism.TheVediccompositionsandtheDharmasastras(thecodesofsacredandsocialduties)aresaidtoconstitutethenormsforBrahmanismandthereligiouspracticesfortheuppercastes(Thapar,2005,p.57).38

Incontrast,theSramanaswere:

thosewhowereofteninoppositiontoBrahmanismsuchastheBuddhists,JainasandAjivikasandanumberofothersectsassociatedwithbothrenunciatoryordersandalayfollowing,whoexploredareasofbeliefandpracticedifferentfromtheVedasandDharmasastras(Thapar,2005,p.58).

However,Thaparcontendsthatalthoughseveralofthesedissentersfrom‘Brahmanism’

couldarguablybeincludedundertheumbrellaof‘Hinduism’neverthelesstherehas

beenaconcerted“attempttodefineHinduismasBrahmanismbasedonuppercaste

rituals”(2005,p.61)AsfarasThaparisconcerned,thiseffortislargelyduetothe

impactofcolonizationandisillsuitedtotheIndiansubcontinent:

TheyardstickoftheSemiticreligionswhichhasbeentheconsciousandthesubconsciouschallengerinthemodernstructuringofHinduism,wouldseemmostinappropriatetowhatexistedbefore(2005,p.57).

AccordingtoThapar,therearearangeofbeliefsandsects,ideasandphilosophies,

ritualsandpractices,thatco-inhabitthisarea,butwhichareleftoutfromtheall-

inclusivelabel‘Hinduism’,therebymakingthiskindofcategorizationproblematic.

Instead,shehighlightsthedifferencesbetweenthewaytraditionsthatareclassifiedas

‘Hindu’emergedanddevelopedincomparisontotheirWesterncounterparts.For

38ForthepurposesofthischapterIwilllimitmycommentstothisessayofsinceitisherapplicationofthelabel‘syndicatedHinduism’thatIwouldliketoexamine.

86

example,therearenolineartrajectoriesthatcanbetracedbetweenthevariousHindu

traditions:

Present-dayHinduismthereforecannotbeseenasanevolvedformwithalineargrowthhistoricallyfromHarappanthroughVedic,PuranicandBhaktiforms,althoughitmaycarryelementsofthese.InthisitdiffersevenfromBuddhismandJainismleavealoneChristianityandIslam(Thapar,2005,p.56).

Thaparpointsoutthat,asaresult,‘Brahmanism’wasespeciallydifferentfromits

counterpartsbecause,whereasamongstothertraditions,whenasectbreaksawayit

“stillretainsthehistoricalimprintofthefounder,thetextandtheinstitution…

Brahmanismwasfreeofthis”(Thapar,2005,p.58).Thapararguesthatthisisbecauseof

thecastesystem,sincedifferentcasteshighlighteddistinctiveaspectsofscripturesand

traditionalpractices,therebyprivilegingalternaterituals,dependingonthecommunity

towhichtheybelonged.However,Thaparconcedesthatdespitetheseobvious

differencesHindutraditionswereoftenseenaspartofawholesinceBrahmanismwas

influentialandSanskritwasthelanguageofchoice,therebygivingtheimpressionthat

thesedivergentidealsformedsomekindofunity:

WithinBrahmanismtherewasalsosegmentationbutseenfromtheoutsideitseemedanentity.Brahmanismdidmaintainitsidentityandsurvivedthecenturiesalthoughnotunchanged,particularlyafterthedeclineofBuddhism.Thiswasinpartbecauseitwaswell-endowedwithgrantsoflandanditemsofwealththroughintensiveroyalpatronage,whichinturnreinforceditsclaimtosocialsuperiorityandenableditfurthertoemphasizeitsdistancefromothercastesandtheirpractices.TheextensiveuseofSanskritasthelanguageofritualsandlearningenhancedtheemploymentofbrahmanasinworkinvolvingliteracysuchastheupperlevelsofadministrationandgavethemaccesstohighpoliticalofficeinroyalcourts.Thisagainsupporteditsexclusivestatus.theuseofasinglelanguage–Sanskrit–gaveitapan-Indiancharacter,thewidegeographicalspreadofwhichprovidedbothmobilityaswellasastrengtheningofitssocialidentity(Thapar,2005,pp.58-59).

ThaparalsousestheexampleoftheBhaktimovements,thatemergedinthemedieval

era,tomakeherpointthateventhoughdifferentgroupswereoftentimeslinked,in

reality,theywerequiteseparate:

87

ThePasupatas,theAlvarsandNayannars,theSaiva-SiddhantaandtheLingayats,JnanesvaraandTukarama,Vallabharcarya,Mira,Caitanya,Sankaradeva,Basava,Lalla,Tulasidasa,andsoonareoftenbunchedtogetheraspartoftheBhaktistream.Infacttherearevariationsamongthemwhicharesignificantandneedtobepointedout(Thapar,2005,p.59).

Accordingly,Thaparhighlightsthefactthatnativetraditionswerevastlycomplexand

hadmanyqualitiesthatdistinguishedthem:

ThesectsincludedinthehoneycombofwhathasbeencalledHinduismweremultipleandrangedfromanimisticspiritcultstoothersbasedonsubtlephilosophicconcepts.Theywereorientedtowardstheclan,thecasteandtheprofessionorelseonthereversingoftheseidentitiesthroughrenunciation.Thesocialidentityofeachwasimprintedonitsreligiousobservances(2005,p.61).However,Thaparacknowledgesthatdespitethisdisparitybetween

philosophies,rituals,andpractices,eventuallyIndianleadersperceivedtheneedfora

unitedfrontinthefaceofrepeatedexternalinvasions,andthecolonizationofthis

region.Afterall,nativeswerenowbeinggroupedtogetherasthe‘other’;an‘other’that

hadtofindawaytodefinethemselves:

TheimpactbothofmissionaryactivityandChristiancolonialpowerresultedinconsiderablesoulsearchingonthepartofthoseIndianswhowereclosetothisnewhistoricalexperience.OneresultwastheemergenceofanumberofgroupssuchastheBrahmoSamaj,thePrarthanaSamaj,theAryaSamaj,theRamakrishnaMission,theTheosophicalSociety,theDivineLifeSociety,theSwaminarayanmovementetal.,whichgavegreatercurrencytothetermHinduism(Thapar,2005,p.65).

Thus,unlikeintheancientandmedievalpast,whenbrahmins,whohadtheupperhand,

couldaffordtoignorethemlecchas,asHalbfassdemonstrates,now,thepriestlyclass,

alongwiththenationalists,hadtofindwaystorespondtothiscolonizing‘other’.

Here,Thaparmaybereferringtoanideathatgainedmomentumbecauseofthe

theoriespresentedbyEdwardSaidinhisgroundbreakingbookOrientalism(1979).

Saidnotonlyoutlinestheproblemsanddilemmasentailingthecategorizationofthe

‘other’buthealsopointsouthowthisneedfordefinitionofthe‘other’is,inallactuality,

88

aneedtodefineoneself(1979,pp.1-4).39Infact,onegetsthedistinctimpressionthat

Said’sconceptsresonatewithThaparassheasserts:

ThefirststeptowardsthecrystallizationofwhatwetodaycallHinduismwasbornintheconsciousnessofbeingtheamorphous,subordinate,other.Inasensethiswasareversalofroles(2005,p.63).

Shedoesacknowledgehowever,thatsinceitwastheupperclasseducatednativeswho

interactedwiththesecolonizers,firstMuslim,andthenChristian,thatthischangewas

particularlyvisibleamongsttheIndianelite.Furthermore,asKinghasalreadypointed

out,Thapararguesthatsince“[t]herewasmuchmoredialogueofuppercasteHindus

withChristiansthantherehadbeenwithMuslims”(2005,p.65)theideaofaunified

‘Hinduism’reallyemergedduringtheBritishRaj.Asaresult,Thaparnotes:

Thoseamongthese[native]groupsinfluencedbyChristianity,attemptedtodefend,redefineandcreateHinduismonthemodelofChristianity.TheysoughtfortheequivalentofamonotheisticGod,aBook,aProphetoraFounderandcongregationalworshipwithaninstitutionalorganizationsupportingit.Theimplicitintentionwasagainofdefining“theHindu”asareactiontobeing“theother”;thesubconsciousmodelwastheSemiticreligion(2005,pp.65-66).

Itisbecauseofthisinteraction,andthesubsequenteffortsoftheIndianelitetopresent

aunitedvoicefortheensuingnationaliststruggle,thatgavecausefortheemergenceof

whatThaparcalls“SyndicatedHinduism”.Thus,shecontendsthatdespitetheobvious

variations,andcontradictoryphilosophiesthatengagedwitheachother,andwhich

continuedtobeinevidence,nevertheless,thecombinedrequirementofadministrative

efficiencybytheBritish,andtheneedforaunitedvoiceforpoliticalreasonsbythe

natives,resultedintheso-calledsyndicationof‘Hinduism’:

InevitablytheBrahmanicalbaseofwhatwasseenastheneworneo-Hinduismwasunavoidable.ButmergedintoitwerealsovariouspracticesofuppercasteworshipandofcoursethesubconsciousmodelofChristianityandIslam.Itscloselinkswithcertainnationalistopiniongavetomanyoftheseneo-Hindumovementsapoliticaledgewhichremainsrecognizableeventoday.Itisthis

39Saidpresentsthisideainthe“Introduction”butthengoesontodevelopthistheorythroughoutthisvolume.

89

developmentwhichwastheparenttowhatIshouldliketocallSyndicatedHinduismandwhichisbeingprojectedbysomevocalandpoliticallypowerfulsegmentsofwhatisreferredtoastheHinducommunity,asthesoleclaimanttotheinheritanceofindigenousIndianreligion(Thapar,2005,p.74).

Thaparadvocatesagainstthisunitedfrontbecausesheseesitasavehicletosilence

thosenativeswhosetraditionsdonotfitcomfortablywiththeideaschampionedbythe

advocatesof‘SyndicatedHinduism’:

SyndicatedHinduismclaimstobere-establishingtheHinduismofpre-moderntimes:infactitisonlyestablishingitselfandintheprocessdistortingthehistoricalandculturaldimensionsoftheindigenousreligionsanddivestingthemofthenuancesandvarietywhichweremajorsourcesoftheirenrichment(2005,p.79).ItisevidentthatThaparisconcernedaboutthefactthatthestrategiesthatwere

usedbythenationalists,duringIndia’sstruggleforindependence,arestillbeingutilized

despitebeingbothoutdated,andinappropriate.Accordingly,shespeaksoutagainstthe

growingpowerof‘SyndicatedHinduism’whichshethinksisparticularlyproblematic

sinceitscontinuedsuccesscansilencethediverseHindutraditionsthatwereprevalent

beforecolonization.

PerhapsthemajorassetofwhatwecallHinduismofthepremodernperiodwasthatitwasnotauniform,monolithicreligion,butaflexiblejuxtapositionofreligioussects.Thisflexibilitywasitsstrengthanditsdistinguishingfeature,allowingtheinclusionevenofgroupsquestioningtheVedas,disavowingcasteandtheinjunctionsoftheDharmasastras.Theweakeningordisappearanceofsuchdissentinggroupswithintheframeworkevenofreligiousexpressionwouldbeaconsiderableloss(Thapar,2005,p.75).

ThisstanceofThapar’shasinvitedafairamountofcriticismfromcontemporaryHindu

nationalists,whoarethreatenedbyherchampioningthecauseofthesubalternvoices

thatthathaveemergedoverthelastfewdecades.Thissubalternscholarship,

spearheadedbyRanajitGuha,inconjunctionwithotherIndianandWesternscholars,is

intentonshiningalightonthehistoryofthenon-eliteswhosevoice,theyargue,has

beensubduedandignoredinfavouroftherolesandopinionsoftheelite,bothWestern

90

andIndian.Thesubalternscholars,andThapar,areconcernedaboutthesilencingofthe

unheard,andthereforeundervalued,indigenousvoices.Thapar’sargumentagainst

‘SyndicatedHinduism’resonateswithGuha’scontentionwherebyheassertsthat

subalternscholarshipshedslighton“thefailureoftheIndianbourgeoisietospeakforthe

nation”(Guha,1994(a),p.5,emphasisinoriginal);anissuethatNandyalsohighlightsin

thefirstchapter.WhatisironicisthatThaparherselfhasbeenaccusedofbelongingto

theIndianelitebycontemporarynationalists,apointwewillreturntointhefinal

chapter.Fornow,itmustsufficeforustoacceptthatwhereasThaparmakessome

valuablearguments,againstthecontinuedrelianceona‘syndicated’formof‘Hinduism’,

she,likeotherscholarswehaveexaminedinthischapter,doesnotofferanyconcrete

solutionsonwhatlabel,orlabelswouldbestdescribethetraditionsofIndia.

Conclusion

Whatshouldbeevidentbynowisthattheidea,thatmultipletraditionsareall

expectedtosomehowfindawaytoadoptthislabel‘Hinduism’,astheirown,isa

challengingproposition.Indeed,onecouldevenaskwhyholdingontosuchatitlehas

becomesoimportanttoscholarssuchasmyself.Afterall,thefactthatHinduswho

celebratethepolytheisticaspectsof‘Hinduism’duringfestivalslikeGaneshaChaturti

andDurgaPujacancoexist,andparticipate,inthesamelandscapeasVedantinswho

embodymonotheisticidealsbringsusbacktotheidenticalquestionswithwhichwe

started.Thus,notonlyarewestillaskingifHindutraditionscanbegroupedtogether,

butwemayalsobewonderingwhysuchacollectiveidentityissocrucial,notonlytoa

greatnumberofHindusbutalsotomanyscholars.Theanswer(intrueHindufashion?)

ismultifaceted.Thefirst,andperhapsthemostpragmaticresponse,isthatthislabel

91

allowsHindustohave“aplaceatthemulticulturaltable”(Kurien,2007).40Hindu

scholarsarenaturallyconcernedthatif‘Hinduism’isnolongerconsideredavalid

category,thenthatwillresultinthesplittingupofthisentity,intomultipleidentities,

whichcouldresultinHindushavingtorelinquishtheirseatatthe‘multiculturaltable’,

atwhichtheso-called‘religionsoftheworld’sit.Furthermore,itisalsoimportantto

rememberthat,withoutthis‘conventional’label,itwouldbedifficultformodern

HindustorepresenttheirtraditionsoutsideIndia.Infact,whatisofutmostimportance

isthatHindus,whenpushed,whetherinIndiaorinthediaspora,willacknowledgeand

infactlayclaimto,thiscollectivestatus.Now,wemayarguethatthissharedidentity

wasfirstemphasizedbythecolonizersandwasnotanessentialpartoftheirmake-up

beforethisperiod.However,evenifoneweretoagreewiththisstance,therealityis

thatHindushaveadoptedthiskinshipaspartoftheiridentitytoday.Somuchso,that

Hindusgenerallyacknowledgetheoccasionalneedforthiscollectiveidentityandaccess

itwhentheyarerequiredtodescribethemselvestonon-Indians.Thisdoesnotmean

thatitisacentralaspectoftheirtraditionalmake-up,butsimply,oneofthe

characteristicsoftheirmulti-facetedworld-view.Forscholarstodemandthatthey

discardthisideawouldbeaspresumptuousasitwasforcolonizerstotryandfitHindu

ideasintoWesterncategories.Thisconceptofconnectivityisstilluseful,especiallyasa

conventionallabelandparticularlyinconversationwithnon-Indians,forittobe

discardedarbitrarilybyscholars,albeitHinduonessuchasmyself.

Ontheotherhand,italsocannotbedenied,thatmanyscholarswouldarguethat

thisisasimplecaseofhegemonywhichneedstoberectified.Somuchsothatcertain

40ThisisthetitleofPremaKurien’sbookwhichexploreshowHindusinthediasporahaveadaptedtotheAmericanreligiousenvironment.

92

academics,suchas,TimothyFitzgerald41andS.N.Balagangadhara42,havecalledforthe

dissolutionoftheverycategory‘religion’.Similarly,TomokoMasuzawahasoutlined,in

detail,howthecategory‘worldreligions’isprimarilyaWesternconstructcreatedto

enforceandgiveexpressiontoaWestern‘religious’agenda:

whatIhopetobringtotheforegroundisacertainlogicorcertainideologicalpersuasionsthatarecoveredoverbyandatthesametimestilloperativeinourpresent-daydiscourse,thatis,inthenowfamiliar,routinizedstrategyformappingtheworldreligiously.Itwillbesuggested,ineffect,thatthenewdiscourseofpluralismanddiversityofreligions,whenitfinallybrokeoutintotheopenandbecameanestablishedpracticeinthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,neitherdisplacednordisabledthelogicofEuropeanhegemony–formerlycouchedinthelanguageofuniversalityofChristianity–but,inaway,gaveitanewlease(Masuzawa,2005,p.xiv).

Inthelastchapter,wehavealreadyseenhowthiscategory‘religion’isdifficultto

divorcefromitsWesterninfluencesdespitethealternateoptionsthatareregularly

proposed.Thetruthisthateventhoughsuggestionssuchas“cosmologicalformations”

madebyDanielDubuissonholdmanycharms,theprobabilityandlogisticsofsucha

changeoccurring,inthenearfuture,isnotverypromising.Thus,whereaswemaychafe

attheuseofthislabelandcategoryandmayevenopt,likemyself,touseamodification

ofit,thefactisthatarealalternativehasyettobeidentified.

Indeed,despitethereservationsraisedbyBankimchandraintheprevious

chapter,IalsobelievedthatforthepurposesofthisprojectIwouldeventuallydiscard

thetitle‘religion’andinstead,adopttheHinduterm‘dharma’.Infact,Iwasenthusiastic

whenIdiscoveredthemyriadofwaysinwhichthisSanskritwordhasbeenusedto

41InTheIdeologyofReligiousStudies(2000)TimothyFitzgeraldexploresthevalueofthecategory‘religion’anditscontinueduseintheacademy.AccordingtohimthisisoftentimesaninvalidcategorycreatedbyWesterners,forWesterners,andassuchshouldbeincorporatedintoother,andaccordingtohim,lessproblematic,categoriessuchassociology,historyandanthropology.42SeepreviouschapterforashortsurveyonBalagangadhara’sissueswiththecontinueduseofthelabel‘religion’andhisreasonsfordiscardingwhatheperceivestobea‘Christian’category.

93

denoteHindutraditions.43Iwasconvincedthatitwouldbetheperfecttooltodescribe

thevariousHindusectsthatareincludedunderthebanner‘Hinduism’.However,Ialso

discoveredthatnotunliketheterm‘religion’whichhasstrongtieswithChristian

ideology,thetermdharmacanbeequallyassociatedwithVedicandBrahmanicalideals

ofmaintainingorderinsociety.Thus,itisworthnotingthatinarecentexchangeonthe

RISA-Listserv44thePresidentofTheSouthAsiaResearchandInformationInstitute,Dr

SudalaimuthuPalianappancontends:

Whatyousayabout'Hindudharma'meaning'Hinduism'doesnotapplytoTamilusage…Infact,tome,ifapersonuses'Hindudharmam'and'Sanātanadharmam'inTamil,itisaverylikelyindicationofthepersonadheringtoeitherorthodoxbrahminism(asinthewritingsoflateKanchiŚankarācārya)orHindunationalism.45

CommentslikethesenaturallymademecautioussincethelastthingIwouldliketo

encourageisareestablishmentofthedominanceofVedicideasovernon-Vedicones.

Unfortunately,toprove,ordisprove,thatdharmawouldbeanappropriatereplacement

forthecategory‘religion’,anextensiveamountofresearchwouldberequired,which,is

beyondthescopeofthisproject.Thus,IreturntomypreviousstancewherebyIwilluse

theword‘tradition’inthehopethatIwillbeabletoavoidatleastsomeofthepitfalls

thathavebeenhighlightedbyscholarsregardingtheterm‘religion’.

43AgoodplacetobeginthisinvestigationiswithHalbfass(1988).Inthechapter“DharmaintheSelf-UnderstandingofTraditionalHinduism”Halbfasscovers,insomedetail,themanywaysthistermdharmahasbeenusedandappliedbyIndiantexts,philosophersandreligiousleaders.44RISA(ReligioninSouthAsia)isasectionoftheAmericanAssociationofReligion(AAR).Members,whoareusuallyscholarsinvolvedinSouthAsianstudyprograms,haveaccesstoanofficialemaillistwhichallowsthemtocommunicatewiththeirpeersbyaskingquestionsandpresentingdilemmas.RISA-Listservisthatofficialemaillist.45SudalaimuthuPalianappan,RISAAcademicdiscussionlist.“…butwhatiswrongwith“Hindutheology”?October14th2011.InapersonalemailexchangewithDr.Palianappanhesuggested“thattheconnotationoforthodoxyintheuseof‘dharma’”isexplicatedintheworkHinduDharma:TheUniversalWayofLife,ChandrasekharendraSaraswati,BharatiyaVidyaBhavan,Mumbai,2008.

94

Asfarasthelabel‘Hinduism’isconcerned,onesignificantfactortokeepinmind

isthatthistitlehasprovidedHindus,especiallyinrecenttimes,withavoicethatthey

maynothavehadifthesetraditionsweresplitup(intoVedantic,Shaivite,Vaisnavite,

etc.)andthetitle‘Hinduism’wasdissolved.Nodoubt,therearetimeswhenthese

divisionsarehelpfulandnecessary,justastitlessuchasProtestant,Catholic,Lutheran,

Baptistetc.areimportantwaysinwhichtodescribethecomplexitiesofChristianity.

However,thelabel‘Christianity’alsoservesapurpose,apurposethatmaybevastly

differentfromtheonethat‘Hinduism’serves,butwhichisimportantnevertheless.

RosalindO’HanlonandDavidWashbrookhighlightthisoccasionalneedforoverarching

labelswhentheycitethefeministDeniseRileywhoargues:

Iffeminismabandonsthecategoryofwomenandthepropositionthattheyhaveadifferenthistory,itdissolvesitsownsubject.Althoughfeministscontendstronglyamongstthemselvesastowhethertheconceptofwomanconstitutesauniversalcategory,theymustforsomepurposesandatsomelevelscontinuetoactasifsuchacategoryindeedexists,preciselyforthereasonthattheworldcontinuestobehaveandtreatwomenasthoughonedoes(O'Hanlon&Washbrook,1992,p.154).

Similarly,therearecertaincircumstanceswhenthetitle‘Hinduism’hasservedasa

conventionaltoolthathasbeennecessary,especiallywhendiscussingdiversetraditions

inaglobalsetting.Thisdoesnotmean,justastheBuddhistteachingimplies,thatthis

labelisan‘ultimate’orfinalcategory,butrather,thattherearecertaincircumstances

whereitsusehassomebenefits.Somescholarshavearguedthatthislabeldidnotexist

beforethecolonialperiod(King,1999,p.107).Whereasthismaybetrue,thesuggestion

that,asaresult,itshouldnotbeusedretroactivelytosignifyacollectiveHinduidentity,

ismuchhardertoaccept.Rather,itmaybemoreaccuratetorecognize‘Hinduism’asa

webofideasthatwasdevelopingontheIndiansubcontinent.Forexample,King

exploresthenotionsofpolycentric,centrifugalandcentripetaltheorieswhichthen

leadshimtosuggestthatIndiantraditionsmaybeaninterestingsourceforfurther

95

investigation,andtheeventualdisentanglementfroma“universalized‘discourseof

religion’”(2010,p.110).

AncientIndiantraditionalideas(Shaivite,Tantric,Vedic,Sramanic,etc.),

coexistedinvaryingdegreesofharmonyanddissentwithouthavingastrongurgeto

formanoverarchingbond.Thisdoesnotsuggestthattherewasnosenseofkinship,or

sharedidentity,amongstcertaingroups(geographical,linguistic,scriptural,etc.)during

thatera,butrather,thattherewasnoimminentneedtonametheseidentities.

However,withtheMusliminvasionbeginninginthe9thcenturyCE,theindigenous

residentsofthissubcontinentweresuddenlyforcedtoengagewithafullyformed

traditionalentitythathadveryclearboundariesofbelonging.Perhapsitisbecause

thesenativeswerecompelledtoexaminetheirbeliefsystemsandworldviews,inthe

faceofthisexternalchallenge,thattheyrealizedthateventhoughtheymightnotbe

identicaltotheirneighbours,theynevertheless,hadmoreincommonwithothernative

traditionsthanwiththephilosophicandritualidealsoftheirconquerors.Letmequickly

statehere,beforeIcontinuetoexaminethewaysinwhichtheseindigenousbonds

developed,thatmypurposeforpursuingthishistoricaltimelineisnottolayanyblame

ontheIndianMuslimcommunity.RatherIamsimplyidentifyingahistoricaleventthat

servedasacatalystinthedevelopmentoftheHinduidentity.Furthermore,Iamalso

awarethatHinduandMuslimideasoftentimesmergedtoformaspecialkindofbond

which,isevidencedintheteachingsofthemanySufisaintswhocontinuetobe

extremelyimportantintheIndianlandscape.Andfinally,byhighlightingtheinvasionof

theMuslims1000yearsago,Iamnotchallengingtherights,influenceorcredentialsof

theMuslimcommunitieswhoshareintherichheritageofIndiatoday.

Thatbeingsaid,oncetheMuslimsarrivedthereemergedaneedfor

identification,andnaming,thathadnotbeenevidencedpriortotheirarrival.Indeed,as

96

wehavealreadyseen,thisisoneofthepointsthatLorenzensuccessfullyconveys

throughhisresearch.However,itisalsoimportanttorecognizethatthisneedfor

identitywasvastlydifferentfromanythatoccurredinotherpartsoftheworld.The

majordifferenceshavebeenpointedoutbyscholarsandhistoriansoverthepastfew

centuries.Accordinglytheyargue;hereisatradition,manyofwhosepractitionersclaim

asharedidentity,butyetthereisnocommonfounder,nocommontexts,nocommon

ritualsandpractices,nocommonGod/gods,nocommonprayersandnocommon

histories.Indeed,whenexaminedwiththisrubric,thereislittlereasontosee

‘Hinduism’asacommonidentityfortheHindus.Assuch,thiswasnotatraditionlike

anyother;indeed,thefactthatitdidnotfittheWesternrubricof‘religion’iswhat

causedsomuchtroubleinthefirstplace!However,ontheotherhand,Hindusdohavea

sharedidentity,whichcan,andforpracticalreasonsmust,benamed.Thisiseasiersaid

thandone,whichisevidencedinthemanyattemptsmadebyscholarsandpractitioners

toappropriatelydescribethisphenomenon.Oneofthemostinterestinganalogies

comesfromJuliusJ.Lipner:

Considerthemagnificentbanyantree(Ficusbengalhensis)oftheCalcuttaBotanicalGardens.Asabanyan,ithasthecharacteristicofsendingdownaerialshootsmanyofwhichhavegrownthickandstrongtoresembleindividualtreetrunks.Asanancientandproliferatingbanyan,itresemblesaninterconnectedcollectionoftreesandbrancheswithoutanyobviousbotaniccentre.Putsimplistically,theconceptionofHinduismIwishtoproposeissomethinglikethis:itismacrocosmicallyonethoughmicrocosmicallymany,apolycentricphenomenonimbuedwiththesamelife-sap,theboundariesand(micro)centresseemingtomergeandoverlapinacomplexusofoscillatingtensions.Further,unlikethebotanicmodel,theHindubanyandoesnotappearuniformtoview.Rather,itisanetworkofvariety,onecomplexshadingintoanotherandsoformingamultifacetedunity(Lipner,1996,p.109).

WhereasLipner’sanalogyishelpfulinunderstanding‘Hinduism’,hissuggestionthat

‘Hinduism’is“macrocosmicallyone”isproblematicsincethistakesawaysomeofthe

fluiditythatthesetraditionsseemtochampion.Furthermore,thefactthatLipnerfeels

97

theneedtoidentify‘Hinduism’evenata‘macro’levelinthesingularraisesredflags

thatwehavealreadyencounteredwithLorenzen’sworkwhenhesuggeststhatHindus

allbelongtoa“singlereligiouscommunity”(2005,p.54).Onemayaskatthispoint;is

thisnot,infact,whatIamarguingformyself?ThetruthisthatwhereasIamdefending

theideathataHinduidentitybeganemergingfromthe9thcenturyCEthisdoesnot

automaticallyimplythatIbelievethatitwassingular.RatherIwouldproposethatthis

collectivewebofideaswasanythingbutsingular.

Keepingthisdistinctioninmind,theclosestexampleIhaveencounteredto

describe‘Hinduism’initsmultivalentreality,hasbeenfromGabriellaEichingerFerro-

LuzziwhenshecitestheideasoftheAustrianphilosopherLudwigWittgenstein:

TherectificationofourthinkingaboutconceptshadtoawaitWittgenstein’sdiscoverythatconceptsneednothavecommonattributesandclear-cutboundariesbutmaybeheldtogetherby“acomplicatednetworkofsimilaritiesoverlappingandcriss-crossing”(Wittgenstein1976:para66),inotherwordsthata“familyresemblance”mayexistamongtheirmembers.Conceptsformedinsuchawaynowcalledpolytheticcannotbedefinedbutonlyexemplified(2005,pp.294-295).

AccordingtoFerro-Luzzithisisespeciallyimportantforatraditionlike‘Hinduism’:

Thecleardefinitionofone’ssubjectmatterhaslongbeentaughttobeanindispensibleconditionofanyscientificinvestigation.StudentsofHinduismwithitsbewilderingvarietyhavefoundthisrequirementquiteproblematic(2005,p.294).

Consequently,shestates:

IwishtoshowthatitisnotnecessarytoabandonthetermHinduismordenyitthestatusofareligion.Whatshouldbeabandonedinsteadistheconvictionthatallconceptscanbedefinedbecausetheymustpossesscommonattributesandclear-cutboundaries(Ferro-Luzzi,2005,p.294).

ShethengoesontoquotetheIndianscholarM.N.Srinivas,whointhe1960

EncyclopaediaBritannicaargued,“[w]hileitisnotpossibletodefineaHindu,itisnot

verydifficulttoidentifyapersonasaHindu”(ascitedinFerro-Luzzi,2005,p.295).This,

Ferro-Luzzinotes,onlyservestoaccentuateherargumentthat“whilea“family

98

resemblance”cannotbedefinedbyanyconstantattribute,itisoftenpossibletoidentify

apersonasbelongingtoacertainfamily”(2005,p.295).Whatisinterestingaboutthis

ideaofFerro-Luzzi’sisthatitisremarkablysimilartotheargumentthatJ.ZSmithmade,

inthepreviouschapter,whenhearguesforasystemofclassificationwhichwoulddo

awaywithan‘essentialist’definitionofreligion.Ferro-Luzziseemstobeonthesame

trajectoryandperhapsitisnotacoincidencethatsheisapplyingthistheoryofa‘family

resemblance’to‘Hinduism’,atraditionthathascontinuouslydefieddefinitionand

closedclassifications.ThispolytheticapproachofFerro-Luzzi’swhichacknowledges

“sporadicoverlappingsimilarities”(2005,p.298)isparticularlyeffectivebecause,asshe

argues,itacknowledgesthatHindussuchas“Tukaram,theseventeenthcentury

Marathasaintpoet”and“theTamilsaintpoetandyoginTayummanavar”eachaccepted

atleastsomeaspectsof‘Hinduism’despitebeingcontemporarieswho,atfacevalue,

seemedtobeontwoendsofaspectrum(2005,p.299).Similarly,howelsecanwe

explainthefactthatTantricasceticswholiveonburialgrounds,Radhasoamiswho

rejectritualsandidolworship,VaishnavaswhocelebrateGokulashtamiwithpompand

splendour(tomentionjustafew)alllayclaimtothetitle‘Hindu’?

AnotheraspectofFerro-Luzzi’sargumentthatisinteresting,andrelevanttothis

currentdiscussion,isthatshedoesnotignoretheindigenoustraditionsthatarenative

toIndia,butwhosepractitionersdonotclaimtobeHindus.Infact,shecontends:

ithaspreciselybeenmypurposetodemonstratethatallboundariesofpolytheticconceptsarefuzzy.BuddhismandJainismareseparatereligionsbecauseoftheirmembers’wishtobeseparateandnotbecauseofanyintrinsiccriteriajustifyingtheirseparatestatus.Forinstance,therejectionoftheauthorityoftheVedasandofBrahmanpriesthood,themajorgroundonwhichBuddhistsandJainsbasetheirseparateness,alsocharacterizecertainsectionsofHinduism.Thisisnottosay,ofcourse,thatBuddhismandJainismhavenofeaturesdistinguishingthemfromHinduism…Butacommunity’spossessionofsuchdistinctivefeaturesisnosufficientcriterionforbeingclassifiedasaseparatereligion.AlsoHinducommunitieshavedistinctivecharacteristics,aswehaveseen,andyettheydonotleavetheHindufold(Ferro-Luzzi,2005,p.300).

99

Thus,Ferro-Luzziconcludes,“Hinduismshouldbeconsideredapolytheticconcept

madeupofacriss-crossofoverlappingstrandsratherthanaboundedunitpossessing

essentialfeatures”(2005,p.300).ThisisthemostsignificantaspectofFerro-Luzzi’s

argumenti.e.,theideaofa‘familyresemblance’andapolytheticapproachto‘Hindu

traditions’;nottomention,heruniquewayofincluding,yetexcusing,BuddhistandJain

ideasfromtheHindufold.This,onceagain,bringsusbacktotheideathatthese

categoriesarenotairtightbutporous.Indeed,thetheorythatthereisno‘essential’

qualitybywhichonecandefine‘Hinduism’isachallengetotheverystructureupon

whichreligiousstudieshasbeenbuiltwherescienceandreasonhaveoftentimesbeen

giventhehighestplaceofhonour.However,Ferro-Luzziargues:

Toabandontheideathatpatentlydifferentthingscalledbythesamenamemusthavesomekindofunityandtoacceptvaguenessanddisorderforwhattheyareisnottheendofthescientificendeavourbutanewstart(2005,p.303).

Thisisaninterestinganduniquewaytore-examinenotonly‘Hinduism’butother

traditionsaswell.Perhapsitisworthnotingthatmorethananyothertradition,itis

‘Hinduism’whichhaschallengedtheboundariesofthecategory‘religion’,apointthatis

acknowledgedbyseveralscholars.Infact,onecouldalsoarguethat‘Hinduism’isoneof

themainreasonswhythecategory‘religion’hasreceivedsomuchscrutiny.Soonce

againweneedtoaskifdiscardingthecategory‘Hinduism’isprudent,orifinstead,it

wouldbemoreconstructivetoreconfigurethisidea‘religion’.Surelyitistimetoadopta

widerdefinitionofthiscategorysothatitcanincludetraditionswhichdonotconform,

andshouldinstead,beidentifiedaspolythetic,polycentric,centrifugal,etc.,tonamejust

afewsuggestionsmadebythescholarspresentedhere.Fortunately,scholarsare

increasinglyrecognizingthelatentdeficiencieswiththeChristo-centrictoolsthatare

stillusedtoanalyse‘other’traditions.Indeed,thisrecentscholarshipencourages

academicstousedifferentlensesinordertoappreciatecomplexhistories.

100

Asfarastheactualtitle‘Hinduism’isconcerneditmayalsobetimetoadmitthat

thisparticularlabelhasbeentaintedbyyearsofcolonialruleandhegemony.Indeed,

thetitle‘Hinduism’wasacolonialtitlethatwasconstructedinthemouldofWestern

modelsthatitwasexpectedtomimic.Thislabel,andtheideasitoftendescribedduring

thecolonialperiod,werelargelyinfluencedbyVedicidealsanddidnotmirrorthelives

ofmanyHindupractitioners.Oneofthereasonswhythislabelhasbecomeproblematic

todayisbecausemodernscholarsareawarethatHinduideasandpracticeswerenot

adequatelyunderstoodbythoseinpowerduringcolonialtimes.Whatwasincluded

underthelabel‘Hinduism’waslimitedbecauseonlytheconceptswhichcorresponded

toWestern‘religious’ideaswereallowed,orencouraged,tobeincorporated.Thus,even

I,aHinduacademiclivinginthediaspora,havetoadmitthattheterm‘Hinduism’is

becomingprogressivelyhardertousebecauseitsuggestsaclosed,andrigid,identity

thatdoesnotfittheneedofmodernscholarshipandofthediversityinherentinthe

Hindupopulation.Therefore,inamovesimilartotheoneImadewiththeterm

‘religion’,Iproposetousethelabel‘Hindutraditions’46becausewhereasthisallowsme

toseparatemyselffromthe‘isms’thathavegainedsuchnotorietyinrecenttimes,italso

permitsmetoacknowledgethe‘familyresemblance’therebyretainingsomelevelof

connectivitywithHinduideas,ancient,medievalandmodern.Iamhopingthatthiswill

46Iprefertousethelabel‘Hindutraditions’insteadoftheterm‘Indiccivilization’(asKinghassuggested)becausetheothertraditionsthatlayclaimtothelabel‘Indic’activelymaintainaseparateidentityfromtheterm‘Hindu’.Therefore,asFerro-Luzzipointsout,whereasmanyHindusmightincludeall‘other’traditionswithintheirfoldthisdoesnotmeanthatthe‘other’traditionsarenotaversetothiskindofsyncretism.IndianMuslims,Parsis,IndianChristians,IndianBuddhistsandSikhs,whenfacedwithhavingtoexplaintheirtraditionstonon-Indians,wouldnotclassifythemselvesasHindus.ItisoutofrespectfortheirneedforseparationthatIwouldpreferusingtheterm‘Hindutraditions’insteadof‘Indiccivilization’,especiallywhenreferringtotheperiodaftertheBritishinvasion,withwhichmyworkisprimarilyconcerned.

101

permitmetoencompass,withinitsplurality,themanyHinduswhoclaimthese

traditions,butrejectanyvestigesofconformity.

Andfinally,asweconcludethesetwochapters,whichhavefocusedprimarilyon

howcontemporaryscholarsengagewiththeseconcepts,weshouldhaveareasonably

comprehensivefoundationfromwhichtoanalyseVivekananda’scontributionstothis

debate.Hewasoneoftheearliernativevoicestohaveinfluencedthewaytheseterms

wereconstructed,orrejected,ontheIndiansubcontinent.Assuch,adetailedstudyof

wherethisdiscussionstandstoday,andwhytheseconceptsareframedinacertainway

wasessential.Vivekanandadidnotsimplyembracethesetermsandusethem

unwittingly.Hewasacutelyawareofhow‘continentalcollision’hadeffectedlanguage

andconsciouslymadedecisionsaboutthetermsandideasheadoptedfromhis

colonizers.Notonlywashecarefulinhisselectionofcertainterminology,healso

aggressivelypushedbackwhenhefelttheselabelsdidnotreflectHinduideas

adequately.Indeed,manyofthepointsVivekanandaraises,andwhichwewillexamine

intheensuingchapters,arereflectedintheargumentsmadebythesecontemporary

academics.Forexample,Hacker’semphasison‘inclusivism’andhisinterestin

distinguishingTraditionalHindusfromthenativesheclassifiedasNeo-Hindus.

Halbfass’stressontheroleoftheVedas.Lorenzen’seffortstoemphasizethehistorical

ramificationsonthecultivationofthisterm.King’sargumentthatIndia’spolythetic

approachservestohighlighttheuniquenatureofHindutraditions.And,Thapar’s

attempttogiveavoicetothemassesofIndia.Alltheseideas,whicharepresentedhere

asmoderndebates,aretopicsthatVivekanandaengagedwith.Consequently,examining

thequestionsraisedbycontemporaryacademicsallowsustobebetterequippedto

appreciatetherelevanceofVivekananda’sarguments.This,inturn,willhelpusto

identifyhowhisinterpretationscontinuetoimpactmodernscholarship.Hopefully,this

102

willleadtoanovertacknowledgementofhowextensivethissharingofideashasbeen

overthepastfewcenturies.

103

SwamiVivekananda:MadeinIndia

Averybriefbiography

SwamiVivekanandawasbornNarendranathDattaonJanuary12th1863to

BhuvaneshwariandVishwanathDatta.Hewastheirfirstsonandwaswelcomedwith

muchloveandgratitude.Hisfather,asuccessfullawyer,belongedtotheBengalielite

andwasaworldly,well-readmanwhowasknownforhisgenerositytowardshis

extendedfamily.Hehadavastcircleoffriendsandacquaintancesfromallwalksoflife

andreligioustraditions.Incontrast,Vivekananda’spaternalgrandfatherhadchosento

renouncetheworldafterthebirthofhisson,Vishwanath,andVivekanandaisoften

comparedtohimsincehealsochosethepathofarenunciate.Vivekananda’smother

wasadevoutHinduwomanwho,alongwithVivekananda’sgrandmother,broughtup

herchildrentorespecttheHindupantheonofGods.Vivekanandawasafriendlyand

goodnaturedyoungmanwhowaspopularwithhisfriendsandfamilyespeciallysince

hewasbothintelligentandfun-loving.Vishwanatharrangedforhischildrentobe

educatedbyaprivatetutorduringtheiryoungeryears.Assuch,untiltheageofeight,

Vivekanandawashome-schooled,alongwiththechildrenofrelativesandneighbours.

WhenhewaseightyearsoldVivekanandawasenrolledinVidyasagar’sMetropolitan

Institutefromwherehegraduatedin1879.Thereafter,heattendedThePresidency

Collegebutduetoill-health,whichresultedinpoorattendance,hewasforcedtomove

totheGeneralAssemblyInstitute(ScottishChurchCollege);bothcollegeswerein

Calcutta.VivekanandastudiedWesternlogicandphilosophyalongwithancientand

modernEuropeanhistory.ItisattheGeneralAssemblyInstitutethathefirstheard

aboutRamakrishnafromtheprincipaloftheInstitute,WilliamHastie.Hastie,while

teachingstudentsaboutpeoplewhoapparentlyslippedintomystictrances,toldhis

104

studentsthattherewasamysticintheoutskirtsofCalcutta,inDakshineswar,whowent

intoatrancewhileprayingtoKali.Vivekananda,whowasscepticalaboutsuchclaims

didnotimmediatelyvisitDakshineswareventhoughhisinterestwaspiqued.Instead,

hecontinuedtoattendmeetingsoftheBrahmoSamajhopingtofindrationalanswersto

hisownphilosophicalquestions.Occasionally,hewasaskedtosingdevotionalsongsat

theseBrahmomeetingsanditwasinsuchasettingthatRamakrishnafirstmet

VivekanandaandinvitedhimtovisithistempleinDakshineswar.Theimpactonboth

thesemen,whentheyfirstmet,hasbeenrecordedandinterpretedextensively.

VivekanandawasinitiallywaryofthewaysinwhichRamakrishnaseemedtobeableto

mesmerizehim.Eventuallyhowever,Vivekanandagaveintohisnaturalinclinations

towardsthelifeofasanyasi(renunciate)andbecamepartoftheinnercircleofdevotees

whoservedRamakrishna.This,eventhoughhisfather,Vishwanath,haddiedsuddenly

leavinghisfamilyinpoverty.ItwasatimeofgreatangstforVivekanandaashechosea

paththathisfamilyhadnotenvisionedfortheireldestson.

BeforeRamakrishnatooksamadhiin1886,hetoldVivekanandathathewas

bestowingallhisspiritualgiftsuponhimsothathecouldcontinueRamakrishna’s

legacy.Vivekanandaandtenofhisotherbrotherdisciples,whowerenothouseholders,

tookmonasticvowssoonafterRamakrishna’sdeathandbegantheirspirituallifeatthe

BarangporeMath(monastery).Betweentheyears1886and1893Vivekananda

travelledacrossIndia.HereturnedintermittentlytoBarangporeorCalcuttadepending

onthestateofhishealth.Attimes,hetravelledaloneandattimeshewasaccompanied

byone,ormore,ofhisbrothermonks.ThetimehespenttravellingacrossIndiais

considered,bymostofhisbiographers,tobehisformativeyearssincehereportedly

metpeoplefromallwalksoflifewhoinspiredhisfutureplans.Forexample,oneofthe

placeshevisitedonnumerousoccasionswasMadras,inSouthIndia,wherehebecame

105

quitepopular.Similarly,hedevelopedalastingfriendshipwiththeRajaofRamnadwho

becameoneofhisstaunchestsupporters.Eventually,hiswell-wishersinSouthIndia

helpedcollectthefundsrequiredforhimtotraveltoChicagofortheParliamentof

Religionsthathehadexpressedaninterestinattending.Heleftfromtheportin

BombayonMay31st,1893.Histrials,travailsandsuccessesintheWestarewell

documentedandVivekanandaeventuallytravelledacrosstheUnitedStatesandEurope

gainingloyalfollowers,andmeetingsomewell-knownpersonalities,onbothcontinents.

HehelpedestablishthefirstVedantaSocietyinNewYork,thefirstofmanysuchcentres

thatcontinuetospreadtheirmessagetoWesternersandIndiansinthediaspora.

AfterhisfirstvisittotheWest,VivekanandabroughtbackafewofhisWestern

followerstoIndiainthehopethattheywouldhelptackletheproblemsofpovertythat

wererampantinIndia.HehopedtoaccomplishthisthroughtheRamakrishnaMission

Associationthathehelpedestablishin1897.Thisassociationeventuallybecamesimply

theRamakrishnaMissionandreceivedlegalstatusin1909.Vivekanandaalsohelped

establishtheBelurMathintheoutskirtsofCalcuttain1889whichistheheadquarters

oftheRamakrishnaOrderofmonks.Eventually,thegoverningbodyoftheRamakrishna

Mathwasalsoresponsibleforthephilanthropicandsocialserviceprojectsofthe

Mission.TheRamakrishnaMissionandMathhavebranchesalloverIndiaandinsome

Westerncities.

OftheWesternfollowerswhoremaineddedicatedtoVivekananda,Sister

Nivedita(MargaretElizabethNoble,1867-1911)isthemostwell-known,bothbecause

ofherpublicationsaswellasforherinvolvementinIndianpolitics.Vivekanandamade

asecondtouroftheWestbutittookatollonhishealthandeventuallyVivekananda,

whohadalwaysbeendelicateofhealth,passedawayattheveryyoungageof39onJuly

106

4th,1902.AshortpoempublishedinTheIndianMirroronJuly10th,1902,sumsupthe

waySwamiVivekanandawasrememberedbyhismanyadmirers:

ATributetoVivekananda

Lo,Indiaweeps,withthesoundofthedeathnelltolling:AstarhasfadedintheEasternsky.Thedreadedfoe,thefatesofmencontrollingColdlyrefusestopasstheheroby,WeepIndiaofthynoblestsonbereft!Ahy[sic]geniusclaimedhimasherveryown.Uponhisbrowhergloriousmarksheleft,Hissoulwaskindredtothegodsalone,AndIndiagiveshimwithabittergroan.********************************HonouredbyThee,reveredandlovedabroad;Who,ah,toosoonfromtheirmidsthasgone.Hetreadthepaththatpatriotshavetrod.AndlovedhiscountryashelovedhisGod(ascitedinChattopadhyaya,1999,p.286).

TheEarlyYears

Aswesawinthepreviouschapteroneofthemostcommonaccusationsthathas

beenhurledattheIndianelite,whoemergedduringthecolonialperiod,isthatthey

weresimplyaproductofWesterninfluences.Forexample,GeraldJamesLarsonstates:

ModernIndiansnotionsofreligionderivefromamixtureofChristian(andmainlyProtestant)models,OrientalistandlargelyWesternreconstructionsofIndia’sreligiouspast,andnineteenthcenturyindigenousreformmovementsmostofwhichweredefensivereactionsagainsttheonslaughtofWesternizationandChristianmissionizing(1995,p.5).

IintendtodemonstratethatthisargumentdoesnotholdtrueforVivekanandathereby

makinghimanidealexampletocombatthistheory.Indeed,Vivekananda’simpacton

theWest,wherebyhepushedbackagainstmanyofthepreconceivednotionsthat

Orientalistshadpopularized,camefromamanwhowasnotsimplyaWesterncreation,

butrather,homegrown(withalittlehelpfromsomeimportedfertilizer).Similarly,

Nicholsonalsocontends:

107

Noonecandenytheimportanceoftheseintellectuals,includingRamMohanRoy,SwamiVivekananda,SriAurobindo,SarvepalliRadhakrishnan,andMohandasGandhi,inshapingIndians’self-understandingandthepoliticalformationofIndiaasamodernnation-state.OncethetheoryoftheBritishinventionofalmosteverythinginmodernIndiahasbeenproperlydebunked,wecanlookrealisticallyatthewaysthatsuchthinkerscreativelyappropriatedsomeIndiantraditionsandrejectedothers(2014,p.18,emphasisadded).

WhatNicholsonhighlights,isthatthereisstillacovertsenseamongstacademicwriters,

thatvoicessuchasVivekananda’swereheavilyinfluencedbyWesternideology.The

suggestion,orconviction,thatisstillapparentinmanyofthewaysinwhich

Vivekanandaisrepresented,asaproductofWesternthought,needstobe‘properly

debunked’ifwearetoengagewiththeideasthatwereputforthbyIndianslikehim.For

example,aswewillseepresentlywithTapanRaychaudhari,evenscholarswhowantto

underminethisnotionthat‘allideasareWestern’eventuallyreturntoit,almostasif

mothsdrawntoaflame.Perhapstheproblemalsolieswiththefactthatthey

themselvesareinfluencedbyearlierscholarswhoframedtheirwayofthinking.For

example,AgehanandaBharatiin“TheHinduRenaissanceanditsApologeticPatterns”

(1970)arguesthatscholarslikeB.G.Tilak(1856-1920)chosetotranslatethe

Bhagavad-GitaintoMarathibecauseithadalreadybeenpopularizedbyOrientalists:

YetevenTilakchosetheGita,notonlybecauseitwasthetextintowhichpoliticalactionmightbefittedwithimpunity–therearedozensofotherepictextswhichprompttheiraudiencetowardactivism.ThereisnodoubtinmymindthatTilakknewoneoralloftheseveralEnglishtranslationsthathadbeenpublishedbythistime(1970,p.275).

Argumentssuchasthese,remindusthatitisimportantforustotakenoteofthese

biasesthatareoftentimesingrained,a‘colonizationofminds’ifyouwill,whenwe

analysethewayVivekanandaisrepresented,evenbyscholarswhoareapparently

impartialintheirinterpretations.

ReturningtoVivekananda,welearnthatlikemanyotherBengalisfromaffluent

Indianfamiliesinthenineteenthcentury,hehadaratherbroadeducationthat

108

encompassedthemanytraditionstowhichhewasexposed,incolonialIndia.For

example,hisfathertaughthimtoshowrespectforhisMuslimandChristianbrethren

andtheirtraditionsandscriptures.Accordingly,BhupendranathDatta,Vivekananda’s

youngerbrother,writesinSwamiVivekananda:Patriot-Prophet(1954)thattheirfather

wasawell-readmanwhoselibrarywasfilledwithSanskrit,EnglishandPersianbooks

intopicsrangingfromhistory,religion,Westernphilosophyandliterature:

Bisvanath[Vishwanath]wastheproductofoldHindu-Moslem[sic]CivilizationandthenewEnglishculturespreadinginhistime.HehadEuropeanfriends.Hehadtastesforboth.Indress,foodandetiquettehefollowedtheoldjointHindu-Moslemtradition.Again,insomemattersofdailylifehefollowedEuropeancustomlikeothergentryoftheperiod.Butheneverdeviatedfromorthodoxtraditions.HegavedakshinastotheBrahmans,andhonouredthepirsaswell(Datta,1954,p.100).AsforVivekananda’smother,sheexposedhimtoHinduritualsandrichstories

from‘Hindu’mythology.Soinfluentialwerehismother’steachingsthatinEurope

Reconsidered:PerceptionsoftheWestinNineteenth-CenturyBengal(2002),Tapan

RaychaudhariobservesthatVivekananda:

repeatedlydrewuponthisstorehouseofsimplewisdominhislecturesabroad.[and]Nivedeta’sCradleTalesofHinduismbasedonstoriessheheardfromhermaster,isgenerallytracedtothesamesource(1988,p.223).

ThisdichotomyinVivekananda’searlychildhoodismirroredthroughouthisadult

career.Ontheonehand,hewasinfluencedbytraditionalphilosophiesthatresonated

withhimataverydeeplevelandwhichherelatedtoinavisceralway.Thisisreflected

inthewayheusedHinduparablestomakehispointthroughouthisadultcareer.For

example,heexplainstheconceptofmayabyusingthestoryofIndra,thekingofthe

devas,whoforgotwhohewaswhenhewasincarnatedasapig(Vivekananda,2009,

vol.1,p.248).Ontheotherhand,sincehewasexposedtobothWesternandIslamic

conceptsduringhisearlyyears,hecontinuouslylookedforwaystomakehistraditional

109

ideasrelevanttotherestoftheworld.Forexample,heusedChristian,Jewishand

Islamictheoriestodemonstratethathisbeliefinmonismwassuperior:

MohammedfoundthatChristianitywasstrayingoutfromtheSemiticfoldandhisteachingsweretoshowthatChristianityoughttobeaSemiticreligion,thatitshouldholdtooneGod.TheAryanideathat“IandmyFatherareone”disgustedandterrifiedhim.InrealitytheconceptionoftheTrinitywasagreatadvanceoverthedualisticideaofJehovah,whowasforeverseparatefromman.ThetheoryofincarnationisthefirstlinkinthechainofideasleadingtotherecognitionoftheonenessofGodandman.Godappearingfirstinonehumanform,thenre-appearingatdifferenttimesinotherhumanforms,isatlastrecognisedasbeingineveryhumanform,orinallmen.Monisticisthehigheststage,monotheisticisalowerstage(Vivekananda,2009,vol.7,p.100).

WewillreturntoVivekananda’sargumentsfavouringmonisminthefollowingchapter.

Fornow,sufficeittosaythathewasexposedtotheintricaciesofthesetheoriesinhis

youth.

Ontheotherhand,whereasitistruethatthis‘continentalcollision’beganearly

inVivekananda’slife,itisalsoevidentthatoneofthestrongestinfluencesinhisearly

yearswasthatofhismother,BhuvaneshwariDevi.Unfortunately,Vivekanandahimself

doesnotspeakofhisearlychildhoodinhisvastbodyofwritingsandassuchwemust

relyonothersourcestogetasenseofthistimeinhislife.Nevertheless,byculling

throughvariousbiographieswrittenaboutVivekananda,acommonstorydoesemerge.

First,welearnofVivekananda’sfondnessforwanderingmonkstowhomhegifted

anythingofvaluethathecouldlayhishandson,resultinginhisbeingregularly“locked

upwhenmonkscametoaskforalms”(Chattopadhyaya,1999p.16).Thisaffinityfor

holymenstayedwithhimthroughouthislife.Afterall,notonlydidhebecomeadisciple

oftheBengalimysticRamakrishnabuthealsorepeatedlysangthepraisesofholymen

andadvisedhisfollowerstolearnfromtheseteachers:

openthewindowsofyourheartstotheclearlightoftruth,andsitlikechildrenatthefeetofthosewhoknowwhattheyaretalkingabout–thesagesofIndia.Letusthenlistenattentivelytowhattheysay(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.44).

110

Whatismorerelevantforthepurposesofthisdiscussionhowever,isthatVivekananda

highlightedthedifferencebetweenthewayholymenwererespectedinIndia,in

comparisontotheWest.Thus,heexhibitedhisearlytrainingwhenhelearnedhowto

treatsagesandmonksasgreatteachers,orgurus,whomustbehonouredbysociety:

Withtheteacher,therefore,ourrelationshipisthesameasthatbetweenanancestorandhisdescendant.Withoutfaith,humility,submission,andvenerationinourheartstowardsourreligiousteacher,therecannotbeanygrowthofreligioninus;anditisasignificantfactthat,wherethiskindofrelationbetweenteacherandthetaughtprevails,therealonegiganticspiritualmenaregrowing;whileinthosecountrieswhichhaveneglectedtokeepupthiskindofrelationthereligiousteacherhasbecomeamerelecturer,theteacherexpectinghisfivedollarsandthepersontaughtexpectinghisbraintobefilledwiththeteacher’swords,andeachgoinghisownwayafterthismuchhasbeendone(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.52).

Thesekindsofstatements,wherebyVivekanandahighlightsthedifferencesbetweenthe

WesternandIndianvalorisationofteachers,indicatesthatVivekanandawasrelyingon

hisIndianheritageforhiscuesonhowtobehave,ratherthanontheWesterneducation

thathereceivedbothinhischildhoodandinhisadultyears.

AnotheraspectofVivekananda’schildhoodthatisimportantisthathewas

exposedtofemaledeitieswhenhewasveryyoung.Vivekanandalearnedtopraytothe

Hindugoddessesatanearlyageashiseveningclasseswouldendwithprayersto

Saraswati,theHindugoddessoflearning.Thisearlyexposuretothematernaldeities

wastoinfluenceVivekanandathroughouthislifeandwouldgoontoinformthewayhe

viewedthefeminineprinciple,asubjectwhichwewillexamineinsomedetailinthe

finalchapter.Hewasfurtherinfluencedonthistopicbyhisguru,Ramakrishna,whose

attachmenttotheHindugoddessKaliislegendary.SoenamoureddidVivekananda

himselfbecomewiththematernalaspectofthedivinethatTheCompleteWorks,are

pepperedwithreverentialreferencestotheMother,andalsorecordanumberof

111

devotionalpoemsdedicatedtotheGoddess,specificallyinhermaternalform.47

Furthermore,notonlydidVivekanandalearnaboutHindugoddessesinhischildhood,

hewasalsotaughtstoriesfromtheHinduepicsonaregularbasis:

HymnsinpraiseofriverGangesandKarnaofMahabharatawerememorized…aswellaspassagesofgreatlengthfromtheRamayanaandtheMahabharata

(Chattopadhyaya,1999,p.17).

BhuvaneshwariDeviwasaneducatedwomanwhotaughtherchildrenmanytalesfrom

theseHindutexts.SorelevantweretheseteachingstoVivekananda,andsoawarewas

heoftheirmerit,thattowardstheendofhislifeheadvocatedforthetranslationof

thesetextsintoaformthatwouldmakethemamenableforyoungerstudents:

WemustcomposesomebooksinBengaliasalsoinEnglishwithshortstoriesfromtheRamayanaandtheMahabharata,theUpanishads,etc.,inveryeasyandsimplelanguage,andthesearetobegiventoourlittleboystoread(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.371).

Indeed,TheMahabharataandTheRamayanawereanextremelyimportantsourceof

referenceforVivekananda,throughouthisadultlife,whichisevidencedbythefactthat

henotonlygiveslecturesonTheRamayanaandTheMahabharata,buthealsoused

storiesfromtheseepicstoelaboratehisownphilosophyandteachings(Vivekananda,

2009,vol.4,pp.63-101).48Storiesthathenotonlyheardfromhismotherbutaswellas

fromhisgreat-grandmotherwhoalsoplayedaroleinVivekananda’searlyreligious

education:

She[Vivekananda’sgreat-grandmother]wasaVaishnavadevoteeandmostofherstorieswerefromtheBhagavatamorotherPuranas.SheusedtowakeupthechildrenatdawnandchantedthenamesofKrishna.MahendranathcommentsthatSwamiVivekanandaacquiredhisstory-tellingabilityinchildhoodthusand

47ForanexampleofVivekananda’spoemsdedicatedtothedivinemothersee,“KaliTheMother”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,p.384),“WhoknowshowMotherplays”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.439)and“MyPlayisdone”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.175)48Forexample,Vivekananda(2009)Vol.4,p.102,p.162,p.439;Vol.5,p.232;Vol.7,p.297,p.345.

112

manyofhislecturesintheWestwerelearntfromhisgreat-grandmother(Chattopadhyaya,1999,p.19).WhatisparticularlyinterestingaboutVivekananda’schildhoodhowever,isthat

whereashewastaughtHindutraditionalvaluesatanearlyage,aswehavealready

seen,hewasalsoexposedtoMuslimandChristianideasbecauseofhisfather.Infact,

Dattahighlightstheroletheirfatherplayedinmakingthemintothementheybecame:

Thewriter[Datta]isgratefultohisfatherforbringingtheyoungergenerationoutoftheoctopusofpriestlysuperstitionsandpointingoutanewidealoflife.BisvanathwasaliberalIndianwithasyntheticmind.Thatisthereasonwhyhisoffspringsbecame“radicals”inwaysofthinking.SwamiVivekanandawastheproductofhissocialenvironment(Datta,1954,pp.101-102).

Assuch,onecannotaccuseVivekanandaofchoosingHinduidealsduetoalackof

awarenessofothertraditionsbutrather,acknowledgethathisaffinityforthestories

andsongsthathelearnedwhenhewasachildinformedhissensibilities,evenwhenhe

wasanadult.Raychaudhariremarks:

TheculturalambianceinBiswanath’sfamilywasamixtureofIndo-MuslimandthenewIndo-Anglianmores.ButinnowaywasitalienatedfromthetraditionalpracticesandbeliefsofPuranicHinduismandthesimplepietythatwentwithit(1988,p.223).

Somuchso,thatalthoughVivekanandawentontobecomeastrongsupporterof

Vedanticidealsheneverthelessacknowledgedtherolethatbhaktiplayedinthe

developmentandsurvivalofHindutraditionalideas:

He[who]wantstoloveGod,hereliesuponandusesallsortsofrituals,flowers,incense,beautifulbuildings,formsandallsuchthings.Doyoumeantosaytheyarewrong?OnefactImusttellyou.Itisgoodforyoutoremember,inthiscountryespecially,thattheworld’sgreatspiritualgiantshaveallbeenproducedonlybythosereligioussectswhichhavebeeninpossessionofveryrichmythologyandritual(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.392).

Unfortunatelyhowever,somescholarspreferstressingtheWesterninfluencesthat

Vivekanandawasexposedtoashegrewup.Forexample,despitebeingawareofthe

traditionalexperiencesthatinfluencedVivekananda,nonetheless,Raychaudharifeels

113

compelledtoconclude,“TheyoungNarendranath,beforehisencounterwith

Ramakrishna,wasverymuchatypicalproductofwesterneducation”(1988,p.224).

ThissimplisticconclusionthatRaychaudhariarrivesatishardtoreconcilewiththe

wordsofVivekananda,who,insteaddeclaredonhisreturntoIndiain1897,afterthe

ParliamentinChicago:

ifthereisonewordintheEnglishlanguagetoexpresstheeffectwhichtheliteratureofIndiaproducesuponmankind,itisthisoneword,“fascination”.Itistheoppositeofanythingthattakesyousuddenly;itthrowsonyou,asitwere,acharmimperceptibly.Tomany,Indianthought,Indianmanners,Indiancustoms,Indianphilosophy,Indianliteraturearerepulsiveatthefirstsight;butletthempersevere,letthemread,letthembecomefamiliarwiththegreatprinciplesunderlyingtheseideasanditisninety-ninetoonethatthecharmwillcomeoverthem,andfascinationwillbetheresult(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.110).

TheseideasofVivekananda’scanhardlybebecauseofthetrainingthathereceived

fromRamakrishnaasRaychaudharisuggests.Instead,theyseemtoindicatea

confidenceintraditionalIndianideas,aconfidencethatwasdevelopedatanearlystage

inhischildhoodhome.Somuchso,thataccordingtoVivekananda,therestoftheworld

wouldalsoeventuallybeenthralledbyHindutraditionsandcultures,especiallysince

theyallowedtheirownheritagetotheIndiansubcontinent!

AllthedifferentreligionswhichgrewamongdifferentnationsundervaryingcircumstancesandconditionshadtheirorigininAsia,andtheAsiaticsunderstandthemwell.Whentheycameoutfromthemotherland,theygotmixedupwitherrors(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.321).

Aswewillseeinthefollowingchapter,thispropensityofVivekananda’s,tocombineall

‘other’traditionsunderasinglebanner,abannerthathebelievedwas‘madeinIndia’is

somethinghelearnedtodoatanearlyagethankstotheeducationhereceivedunder

hisparents’tutelage.Somuchso,thateventuallyitbecameatrademarkofthe

‘Hinduism’thatVivekanandapropagatedinhislateryears;a‘Hinduism’thatHacker

latergoesontoassociatewith‘inclusivism’.

114

TheBrahmoSamaj

TheBrahmoSamaj(initiallynamedBrahmoSabha)wasfoundedbytheIndian

reformerRammohanRoyin1829.Thereafter,itwasheadedupbyDebendranath

Tagoreandwasoneofthemostinfluentialreformmovementswithastrong‘religious’

componentincolonialIndia.ItcouldbearguedthatsincetheBrahmoSamaj,andallits

off-shoots,werecreatedbyWesterninfluencedBengalielitemen,itshouldbeclassified

aspartoftheimpactthattheWestmadeonVivekanandasincehewasquiteinvolved

withthisgroupinhisyouth.However,thiswouldbeasimplisticsolutionsincetheWest

mayhaveimpactedthesemenbutitmustalsobeacknowledgedthattheirresponsesto

theseWesternideaswasuniquelyIndian.InTheBrahmoSamajandtheShapingofthe

ModernIndianMind(1979),DavidKopfdrawsattentiontothefactthatRammohanwas

influencedbyUnitarianism49whichinturnaffectedthevisionandidealsthathehadfor

theBrahmoSamaj.However,Kopfalsoacknowledges:

theproblemsfacedbyaRammohunRoywerealwaysmagnifiedbytheperspectiveofcross-culturalcontact…RammohunwascontinuallychallengedbythequestionEuropeansinIndiainvariablyraised:doyouimprovethelotofHindusfromwithinthesystemormustyouundermineitbyassimilationtoaforeignsystem?(1979,p.11)

KopfarguesthatRammohan,duetoIndia’scolonization,wasconstantlyawareof

havingtofindawaytoreconcilealternativeviewpoints.Onecouldsurmisethat

Rammohanfelttheneedtofindawaytomanoeuvrethroughthis‘continentalcollision’:

EquallyinterestingwasRammohun’suseofthecomparativereligiousapproach,whichconstitutedanothermarkeddifferencebetweenhimselfandhisWesternUnitariancounterparts…Rammohunwaschallengedbytheneedtoreconcileatleasttwomajorfaiths.IntheprocessRammohunwascompelledtothink

49AccordingtoKopf,Unitarianism“representedanewandradicalapproachtoreligion,societyandethics.Itwasapioneeringfaiththatemergedoutofthechangingconditionsofthenineteenth-centuryworld.ItchallengedmanyofthereligiouspresuppositionsofthetraditionalsocietiesofEurasiancivilizations.ThoughUnitarianismwasneveramassmovement,theimplicationsofitsprotesthadfar-reachingeffectsamongthemodernizingintelligentsiainIndia”(1979,p.3).

115

comparatively,withtheresultthathisvisionsharpenedinarefreshinglyexpansivemanner,leavinganarrowsectarianviewoftheuniversebehindforever(Kopf,1979,p.13).

Accordingly,Kopfadvocatesscholarstobesensitivetothedifferencesinthe

circumstancesthatguidedreformmovementsintheWest,versusmovementslikethe

BrahmoSamajinIndia,whichweredominatedbytheirneedtoreconcilecolonial

attitudeswithtraditionalvalues:

ItisinthiscontextthatweoughttoassessthesocialaspectoftheHindureformation.ThereislittledoubtthatRammohunwasasmuchinspiredbythesocialgospelofUnitarianismashewasbyitsrationalreligion.ButitiswelltoberemindedofthedifferencesbetweenhistoricalcircumstancesinBengalandintheWest.WehavealreadynotedthatUnitariansinEnglandwereamongthefirsttopointanaccusingfingeratnominalChristiansforignoringtheplightoftheproletariatinthenewurbanindustrialcenters.ButinIndiaintheearlynineteenthcentury,therewasnofundamentalchangeintechnology,noIndustrialRevolution,noindustrialurbancenters,andnoindustrialproletariat.Moreover,foreignruleinIndiaplacedsocialreforminthecontextofculturalencounter.Thequestionofsocialreform,therefore,waslesstheneedtocopewiththeconsequencesofachangingsocial,economic,andpoliticalorderasitwasaquestionofBritishattitudestoIndiancultureandIndianresponsestothoseattitudes(1979,p.14).Consequently,theBrahmoSamajhadarockyhistoryandunderwentanumber

ofschismsbeforewefinallywitnessVivekanandaengagingwiththeirmembers.When

VivekanandawasayoungmanhejoinedtheSadharanBrahmoSamajwhichwasa

groupthatseparateditselffromKeshubchandraSen’s(adiscipleofDebendranath

Tagore)BrahmoSamajofIndiain1878.50AccordingtoChattopadhyaya:

ThereisnodoubtthatsomeofthemoreliberalideasofNarendranaththatwentintothesynthesisofSwamiVivekanandawereacquiredasaresultofhisassociationwiththeSamajinhiscollegedays.Buttherewasasingularlackofinvolvementinsuchideas(1999,p.32).

ChattopadhyayacontendsthatVivekanandawasnotparticularlyinterestedin

expoundingBrahmoideasbutratherthathisassociationwiththeSamajwaslargely

50ForadetailedhistoryoftheBrahmoSamajrefertoKopf(1979).

116

limitedtohimsingingdevotionalsongs.Somuchso,thatmanyscholarshaveeven

arguedthatthisopportunitytodisplayhismusicaltalentwastheonlyreasonforhis

interestintheBrahmoSamaj(Chattopadhyaya,1999,p.32).However,afarmore

moderateviewisthatVivekananda’srelationshipwiththeSamajwascomplicated.For

example,asSilpointsout:

BrahmanandaKeshabchandraSensuggestedthatIndiashouldlearnpracticalknowledgefromEuropeandinexchangeshouldteachtheworldreligiouswisdom.Keshabwroteinhis“ReligionofLove”(1860)thatthereligionoftheBrahmoSamaj“isnotthereligionofanyparticularcommunity,epochorcountry:itisuniversalreligion;itisaHumanCatholicReligion.”ItisSen’sconceptofuniversalreligionthattheSwamiimbibedinhisearlyyouthasaregularvisitortotheBrahmoSamajandnowappropriatedandpreachedinChicago(1997,pp.155-156,emphasisinoriginal).

ItistellingthatsomeoftheseideasarereflectedinalecturethatVivekanandagave

uponhisreturntoIndiaaftertheParliamentinChicagoin1897,onhiswayfrom

Colombo(presentlySriLanka)toAlmora:

Ours,asIhavesaid,istheuniversalreligion.Itisinclusiveenough,itisbroadenoughtoincludealltheideals.Alltheidealsofreligionsthatalreadyexistintheworldcanbeimmediatelyincluded,andwecanpatientlywaitforalltheidealsthataretocomeinthefuturetobetakeninthesamefashion,embracedintheinfinitearmsofthereligionoftheVedanta(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.251-252).

Statementssuchasthese,whichseemtoechothewordsofKeshabchandraSen,makeit

easytoconstruethatthisinteractionwiththeBrahmos,atayouthfulage,mayhave

impactedVivekananda’sdiscursivemethods.Bhupendranathalsospeaksofhis

brother’sinvolvementwiththeBrahmoSamajandsuggeststhattheBrahmoshada

largerimpactonVivekanandathanmanymayacknowledge:

Narendranathinhisyoungdays,joinedtheBrahmoSamaj.Thatwasnothingunusualinthosedaysamongsttheyouthfulintelligentsia.HecameincontactwithKeshubchandraSenandPanditShivnathSastri.HebecameamemberoftheSadharanBrahmoSamaj.PerhapsthemysticismofKeshubchandraseemedtoomuch[sic]irrationaltohim.Heusedtosinginthechoirofthechurch…ThelateHaromohanMitrausedtorepeatedlysaytothewriter,thatSwamijiusedtosay:“ButforRamakrishnaIwouldhavebeenaBrahmomissionary.”Hewasan

117

enthusiasticBrahmoduringthattime.Butthattraitneverlefthim.InspiteofRamakrishnaandmedievalVedanta,fromasocialreformerheturnedasocial-revolutionary.Thisthereformershavefailedtonotice(Datta,1954,pp.154-155).

Similarly,Kopfalsoasserts:

ThoughfutureeventsbuiltonVivekananda’sallegeddiscipleshipunderRamakrishnahaveobscuredtheactualinfluencesinhisearlydevelopment,contemporaryevidencepointsclearlytotheformativeimportanceofKeshubandBrahmoism.K.K.Mitra,whoalsoknewVivekanandaintheearly1880s,hasstatedthatthelatterengagedinBrahmoactivities,attendedBrahmomeetings,livedamongBrahmostudents,andlovedtosingBrahmosongs(1979,p.205).

Furthermore,Sildrawsattentiontothefact:

Narendranath’sintellectualinterestshadbeengreatlyinfluencedbytheenlightenedsocialandspiritualgospelsoftheBrahmoSamaj.Asearlyas1819,thefounderoftheBrahmomovement,Raja(kingorprince–titleforanativechief)RammohanRoy,hadtranslatedKathopanishadintoEnglish–aworkthatheclaimedwas“intendedtoassisttheEuropeancommunityinformingtheiropinionrespectingHindutheology.”Hehademphaticallydeclaredthat“byareferencetohistoryitmaybeprovedthattheworldwasindebtedtoourancestryforthefirstdawnsofknowledgewhichsprangintheEast”(1997,p.50).

WhatisespeciallynoteworthyisthatVivekanandahimselfacknowledgedhisrespect

forRammohan’ssocialworkinIndia,onAugust1st1895:

ThegreatHindureformer,RajaRamMohanRoy,wasawonderfulexampleofthisunselfishwork.HedevotedhiswholelifetohelpingIndia.Itwashewhostoppedtheburningofwidows.ItisusuallybelievedthatthisreformwasdueentirelytotheEnglish;butitwasRajaRamMohanRoywhostartedtheagitationagainstthecustomandsucceededinobtainingthesupportoftheGovernmentinsuppressingit.Untilhebeganthemovement,theEnglishhaddonenothing.HealsofoundedtheimportantreligiousSocietycalledtheBrahmo-Samaj,andsubscribedahundredthousanddollarstofoundauniversity.Hethensteppedoutandtoldthemtogoaheadwithouthim.Hecarednothingforfameorforresultstohimself(Vivekananda,2009,vol.7,p.86).

SoindebteddidVivekanandafeelIndiansshouldbetoRammohanthatheassertedin

1897,atthereceptionheldforhiminCalcutta,whenhereturnedtriumphantlyfromthe

West,thatoneofthemainreasonsthatIndiansandIndiahadfallenbehindwasbecause

“wedidnotcomparenoteswithothernations”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.317)and

thatitwasthankstoRammohanthatthishadchanged:

118

ThelittlelifethatyouseeinIndia,beginsfromthedaywhenRajaRammohanRoybrokethroughthewallsofthatexclusiveness.Sincethatday,historyinIndiahastakenanotherturn,andnowitisgrowingwithacceleratedmotion(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.317).

ApartfromRammohan,aswehavealreadyseen,variousscholarshavearguedthat

VivekanandawasinfluencedbyKeshabchandraSen,oneoftheleadersoftheBrahmo

Samajwhosegroup,someargue,heeventuallydidjoin.Forexample,“[a]ccordingto

ChristopherIsherwood,theneo-VedantistbiographerofRamakrishna,Vivekanandadid

joinKeshub’sBrahmoSamajin1880”(Kopf,1979,p.205).Furthermore,Gwilym

Beckerleggesuggests,“[i]tispossible,therefore,thatVivekanandacontinuedtomove

betweenthesetwoBrahmogroupings,whichhadpartedcompanywithsome

bitterness”(2006,p.140).

Whatismuchmoreimportanttonoteis:

GivenVivekananda’sowneclecticnature,hisfamilybackground,andexpectationsofprofessionalemployment,whichwerebolsteredbyhisfather’sambitions,itis,perhaps,hardlysurprisingthat,asayoungman,hemovedbetweenandsoughtthecompanyofsomeofthemostnotedcelebritiesofhisday;KeshabChandraSenwas,afterall,‘theheroofahundredplatforms’and‘theidolofyoungBengal’.ThisisverymuchtheviewofBhupendranathDatta,Vivekananda’sbrother,whoobservedthatallstudentsofthatperiodwereimbuedwithideasofreformandalsonotedKeshab’sappealtotheyoungasa‘uniqueall-Indialeader’(Beckerlegge,2006(b),p.140).

SilissoconvincedofKeshabchandraSen’sinfluenceonVivekananda,andhiseffortsto

repackageHinduideasandIndia’sroleintheworld,thathedrawsattentiontothe

followingpassagesinKeshabchandraSen’swritings:

In1863Keshabdeclaredinaspeechtitled“TheBrahmoSamajVindicated”thattheBrahmoscripturesweregroundedintheVedantictruthspredicatedonnaturalreasoning.HedeclaredinBath,England,on15April1870thathecould“neverlookupontheredeemingfeaturesofIndiainpasthistorywithoutfeelingathrillofpatrioticfeeling.”WhenthesocialworkerPanditaRamabaimetwithhimanddiscussedtheprojectoffemaleregeneration,SenpresentedherwithacopyoftheVedassothatshewouldactinconsonancewiththeculturaltraditionsofIndia(1997,pp.50-51).

119

Argumentssuchasthesegiveonepause,especiallysincetheideaofa‘universal

religion’,andthecentralityoftheVedasinHindutraditions,formsomeofthe

cornerstonesofVivekananda’sphilosophy.Inanessaytitled“HinduismandShri

Ramakrishna”Vivekananda’sargumentsareremarkablysimilartoKeshabchandra

Sen’s:

TheauthorityoftheVedasextendstoallages,climesandpersons;thatistosay,theirapplicationisnotconfinedtoanyparticularplace,timeandpersons.TheVedasaretheonlyexponentoftheuniversalreligion.(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.181).

ThenaturalquestiontoasktheniswhythisBrahmolinkisdownplayedbyVivekananda

andhisfollowers.Theanswerliesintheantagonismthatdevelopedbetween

VivekanandaandPratapMazoomdar,aBrahmofollowerwhoVivekanandaencountered

attheParliamentinChicago.Initially,whentheymetattheParliamentVivekananda

statesinalettertohisbrotherdisciple,Alasinga,dated2ndNovember,1893,

“MazoomdarandIwere,ofcourse,oldfriends”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.20).

However,thisfriendshipcouldnotwithstandthecompetitiontobethe‘voice’ofIndia

andby1894,inalettertohisbrotherdisciplesVivekanandacomments,“Icoulddo

muchmoreworkbutfortheBrahmosandmissionarieswhohavebeenopposingme

unceasingly”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.263).TheanimositybetweenVivekananda

andtheBrahmoshasbeenwelldocumentedandBeckerleggepointsout:

Vivekananda’slatercommentsontheBrahmotraditionbecameextremelyhostilepromptedbytheconvictionthatProtapChandraMozoomdarandotherBrahmoshadattemptedtounderminehiscredibilityintheUnitedStates(2006(b),p.141).

PerhapsitisthisconvictionthatleadsVivekanandatoassertinalettertooneofhis

Americandisciples,ProfessorJohnHenryWrightdatedthe24thofMay,1894,

“IneveridentifiedmyselfwithMr.Mazoomdar’spartychief.Ifhesaysso,hedoesnot

speakthetruth”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.7,p.468,emphasisinoriginal).Theeditorof

120

thesevolumesstatesthathereVivekanandaisreferringtoKeshubchandraSenwhenhe

speaksofthe‘partychief’andthisisprobablyaccuratesinceVivekananda’stone

becomesmoreaggressiveashecontinues:

IhadconnectionwithPunditShivaNathShastri’sparty[SadharanBrahmoSamaj]–butonlyonpointsofsocialreform.MazoomdarandChandraSen–Ialwaysconsideredasnotsincere,andIhavenoreasontochangemyopinionevennow…TheBrahmoSamaj,likeChristianScienceinyourcountry,spreadinCalcuttaforacertaintimeandthendiedout.Iamnotsorry,neithergladthatitdied.Ithasdoneitswork–vizsocialreform.Itsreligionwasnotworthacent,andsoitmustdieout.IfMazoomdarthinksIwasoneofthecausesofitsdeath,heerrs.Iamevennowagreatsympathizerofitsreforms;butthe“booby”religioncouldnotholditsownagainsttheold“Vedanta”.WhatshallIdo?Isthatmyfault?MazoomdarhasbecomechildishinhisoldageandtakestotacticsnotawhitbetterthansomeofyourChristianmissionaries.Lordblesshimandshowhimbetterways(Vivekananda,2009,vol.7,pp.468-469).

WhatisrelevantinthisdiscussionisthattherelationshipbetweenVivekananda,the

BrahmoSamaj,KeshubchandraSenandProtopMazoomdarwasambiguous.Inspiteof

this,onestillgetsaclearimpressionthatVivekanandawasremarkablyawareoftheir

teachingsandideas,andthattheirideologywasresponsibleforshapingsomeofhis

own.HeevenrecognizedIndia’sdebttotheBrahmoSamajwhenhestatedinanarticle

titled“ModernIndia”aslateas1899:

itisanundoubtedfactthatiftherehadnotbeentheadventofKabir,Nanak,andChaitanyaintheMohammedanperiod,andtheestablishmentoftheBrahmoSamajandtheAryaSamajinourownday,then,bythistime,theMohammedansandtheChristianswouldhavefaroutnumberedtheHindusofthepresentdayinIndia(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,p.463).

Similarly,hiscomments,andcompliments,forRammohan,thatarecitedabove,are

datedaftertheParliamentwhenhehadalreadyhadhisfallingoutwithMazoomdar.

Thus,thisacknowledgementbyVivekananda,wherebyheadmitsthatmissionizing

movementsinIndiawerekeptincheckbygroupssuchastheBrahmoSamaj

demonstrateshisawarenessofhowcrucialtheBrahmoshadbeen,notonlyintheearly

121

stagesofthis‘continentalcollision’,butalsoinhisownpersonalexperienceofcolonial

domination.

Ofcourse,aswasmentionedatthebeginningofthisdiscussion,onecouldstill

argue,atthisjuncture,thattheBrahmoSamajitselfwaslargelyinfluencedbyWestern

ideology.Itisasifinresponsetoargumentssuchasthese,whicharereminiscentof

Hacker’sbinarycategoriesinthepreviouschapter,thatHatcherwarnsreadersnotto

limittheirthoughtprocessestosimpledichotomies,suchastraditionalvs.modern.

Instead,theyshouldbuildargumentsthatallowforadeeper,morecomprehensive

understandingofthepast:

Thelogicofthetradition/modernitydichotomyseemstoforcecertainintellectualmoveswhenitcomestothestudyofHinduism.Wemightpresume,forinstance,thatwecanidentifyarecognizable“break”withtradition.IdentifyingRammohanasthefatherofmodernHindureformistoseeinhimthemarkerofsuchabreak.However,thecounterpointnecessarilyfollows.Don’tRammohan’sendeavorsbuilduponimportantelementsofpreviousintellectualandreligiouslifeinSouthAsia?Ifso,oneiscompelledtoconcludethatnoradicalbreaktookplace.(2006,p.54).

HatcherexploresthewaysinwhichRammohaninparticular,andtheBrahmoSamajin

general,didnotbreaktieswiththeirtraditionalpastbutinstead,re-interpreteditto

suittheirneedsincolonialIndia.AsHatcherexplainsit,notonlydidRammohan

maintainhisconnectionwithhistraditionalpast,butinfact,studieditindetailwhich,

inturn,allowedhimtocreatehisownideologicalpath:

ThoughbornaBrahmin,Rammohan’sspiritualdevelopmenttookhimdownanumberofintellectualavenues.EarlyinlifeheissaidtohavestudiedinbothPatnaandBenares,centersforArabicandSanskritlearningrespectively.Hisfirstpublishedessaywasalengthyrationalisticappealformonotheism,writteninPersian.Tuhfatal-Muwahhidin(Apresenttothebelieversinonegod).MuchofhismostmatureworkwouldfocusonmasteringandtranslatingSanskrittextsonVedantafromtheUpanisadstotheBrahmaSutras.InadditiontohisimmersioninIndo-PersianandVedanticlearning,RammohanalsostudiedTantraandhadworkedinclosecontactwiththeEnglishcollector,JohnDigby,foradozenyearsintheoutlyingdistrictsofBengal.Thus,bythetimehesettledinCalcuttain1815,hehadamassedthekindofexperiencethatwouldearnhimacclaimasapolymathscholarandpolemicist(2006,p.57-58).

122

HatcherconcludesthatwhenRammohanestablishedtheBrahmoSamajin1828,hedid

sobyusingVedantictools:

ThosegatheringwithRammohanwereencouragedtoknowtheSupremeGodaccordingtoRammohan’sreadingoftheUpanisads,whichhereferredtoastheVedant(i.e.Vedanta).FollowingtheclassicalHindutradition,acquisitionofsuchknowledgewouldrequirestudy,meditation,anddiligentrestraintofthepassions(2006,p.59).

Indeed,HatcherpointsoutthatRammohanwasparticularlydespisedbyChristian

missionariessincehehadfoundawaytobypasstheirinsistenceonChrist:

NotonlyhadRammohandaredtosubjecttheGospelstorationalanalysis,intheBrahmoSamajheofferedamonotheismdevoidofbothgraceandatonement.Tothemissionary,whatRammohanofferedwasnotsimplyheathenerror,butworse,themeanstobeatheistwithoutbecomingaChristian(2006,p.65).

Furthermore,hedemonstratesthatRammohan’sphilosophywaskeptlargelyintact

eventhroughthemanyincarnationsthattheBrahmoSamajwentthrough.

Consequently,ifwetakeamomenttoanalyseHatcher’sarguments,thenitstandsto

reasonthattheinfluencethattheBrahmoSamajhadonVivekanandacannotbe

consideredaresultofWesternization,butrather,anotherexampleofhowthis

‘continentalcollision’reverberatedonbothsidesoftheglobe.

SriParamahamsaRamakrishna

ToarguethatVivekanandawasimpactedbyhisguru,Ramakrishna,wouldbe

statingtheobvious,becausetherelationshipbetweenRamakrishna,andVivekananda,

hasbeenwelldocumentedbyseveralscholarssinceVivekanandawas,byfar,

Ramakrishna’smostfamousdisciple.51Instead,Iwilllimitmyinquirybyhighlighting

51MostbiographersofVivekanandaandRamakrishnacoverthisperiodintheirlivesinsomedetail.Forexample,Sen(2000),Sil(1997)andKripal(1995).Naturallythisisnotanexhaustivelistbutinsteadsimplyacross-sectionsamplingofthescholarswhohavewrittenaboutbothmen.

123

thewayRamakrishnaengagedwithtraditionsotherthanhisown.Ifwetakeamoment

toexamineVivekananda’spropensitytoviewallspiritualjourneysandpathsasheaded

forasingulargoal,itwillbecomeevidentthathisnarrativewasstrengthenedbyhis

master’steachings.Consideringthefactthatthisidea,thatalltraditionshaveacommon

trajectory,goesontoformthemainimpetusbehindthe‘Hinduism’thatVivekananda

advocated,itiscrucialtoexaminehowRamakrishnapresentedthesebeliefs,andhow

Vivekanandaimbibedthem.Hopefully,thisdemonstratesthatVivekanandawasnot

simplymimickingideaspresentedbyWesternUniversalists,butrather,thatthis

conceptof‘oneness’wasalsoinspiredbyRamakrishna’sinterpretationofavarietyof

traditions.

UnlikeVivekananda,Ramakrishnadidnotcomefromaneclectic,Bengali

intellectualfamily.Instead,hewasthesonofastrictBrahminfamilyofpriestsand

receivednoformaleducationinhisyouth.However,asapriestinaKalitempleina

smalltownneighbouringCalcutta,Ramakrishnawaswell-knownforhisdevotionto

Kaliandtheeuphorictrancesintowhichhefellwhenhewastransformedbyhisbhakti

fortheMother.Indeed,RamakrishnabecamequitefamousamongsttheBengali

intelligentsia,andinHinduRevivalisminBengal(1993),AmiyaSenstates:

ByimplicitlyupholdingthevalidityofHinduismandtheHinduwayoflifewithinthebroadframeworkofUniversalism,bynotinsistingonstrictritualenforcementwithinreligiouslife,bysuggestingthatGod-realizationwasatangibleandattainablehumanobjective,RamakrishnapavedthewaynotonlyforanewprideofraceandculturebutalsoforthetoningupofmoralandreligiouslifeinlatenineteenthcenturyBengal(1993,p.294).

In“ComparativeMystics:ScholarsasGnosticDiplomats”(2004)JeffreyKripal,oneof

Ramakrishna’smostrecent(andcontroversial)52biographers,drawsattentiontothe

52JeffreyKripal’sbook,Kali’sChild(1998)ruffledquiteafewfeatherssinceheopenlyinsinuatesthatRamakrishnahadhomoerotictendencies,whichheoccasionallyactedupon.Indeed,thisinterpretationofhisformsalargepartofhisresearch.Fora

124

factthatIndianhistoryhashadmanyexampleswhichshowcase“thefluidityofculture

andthemysticaldenialofreligiousdifference”(2004,p.491).However,inKripal’s

opinion,whatmadeRamakrishnauniquewasthatnotonlywerehisexperiences

“distinctlymysticalandunorthodox,”butthattheywere“carriedoninasocial

environmentimbuedwithdebateandreforminspiredbythedominatingpresenceof

Westernreligiousthought”(2004,p.492).WhatseemstohavemadeRamakrishna’s

experience,ofthis‘continentalcollision’,especiallyinterestingtohisIndianfollowers

wasthatevenasadevoteeofKali,heexperimentedwithotherHindutraditions,aswell

aswithChristianityandIslam:

heengagedinVaishnava,ShaktaandAdvaitaVedanticsadhanas(spiritualdisciplines).Orasheputithimself,hepracticedandthought“accordingtothePuranas,”accordingtotheTantras,”and“accordingtotheVedas,”threeclassesofHinduscripturethatrepresentthewaysoftheisticdevotion,erotictransgression,andphilosophicaldeconstruction,respectively(Kripal,2004,pp.492-493).

RaychaudharisuggeststhatoneofthereasonswhyRamakrishnawaspopular,and

gainedsomuchtractionwiththeBengaliintelligentsia,wasbecauseheofferedthema

waytoaccesstheirtraditionalbeliefsinamannerinwhichtheycouldtakepride:

Thenewsocioculturalmovements[ofthe19thcentury]hadfocusedattentiononreligionandthusproducedbothanuncertaintyandaconcernaboutfaithandspirituality.Buttheyhadfailedtoprovidesolutionsacceptabletolargemembers.Keshab’sinspiredpreachinginthemohullasofthecitywasaconsciousassaultonthisanomyinreligiouslife.Ithadconsiderableappeal.ManyoftheyoungpeoplewhobecamedevoteesofRamakrishnawereatfirstKeshab’sfollowers.ThefieryoratorwasaseekerafterGod.Byhisowntestimony,RamakrishnawasapersonincommunionwiththeDeity.Sectionsoftheintelligentsia,concernedaboutessentialreligiosityandtorturedbydoubts,acceptedthesoothingnewsastrue.Thenewswasallthemoresatisfyingbecausethesaintpersonifiedthetraditionofsyncretism(1988,p.237).

measured,discussiononthewaythiscontroversycanbeinterpretedseeFrancisX.ClooneyS.J.“TheMeaningofaSaint”(2012)

125

However,RaychaudharipointsoutthatwhereasHinduconservativesappreciatedsome

aspectsofRamakrishna’smessagetheywerenotalwaysconvincedwithhismethods:

ThevenerationofRamakrishnabyasectionoftheurbanintelligentsiawasbasedonthepsychologicalneedforasatisfyingspiritualideal,generatedbydecadesofreligiouscontroversy.Thereligiousidiomandovertonesoftheburgeoningnationalismprobablyenhancedthatneedaswellastheveneration.Hindurevivalismmayhavefoundsomecomfortinthereflectedgloryofagreatsaint,especiallyafterhewasacceptedassuchbyeminentwesterners.RamakrishnaforthemmightbeapositiveproofofHindusuperiority,buthisinfinitetoleranceandunsectarianspiritualitywashardlytheircupoftea(1988,pp.237-238).

Itisthissyncretism,thatmaynothavebeenapalatable‘cupoftea’formany

conservativeHindus,whichmadeRamakrishnaunique,therebyallowinghimtobethe

perfectspringboardfromwhichVivekanandawasabletorisetogreatheights.

Afewwordsabout‘syncretism’mighthelpclarifyhowscholarshaveusedthis

termandhowithelpedRamakrishnagainpopularityamongstcertainsectionsof

Bengalisociety.AccordingtoPetervanderVeer,in“Syncretism,multiculturalismand

tolerance”(1994b):

SyncretismisatermusedinChristiantheologysinceatleasttheseventeenthcentury.AccordingtotheOxfordEnglishDictionary,itdenotesan‘attempttosinkdifferencesandeffectunionbetweensectsorphilosophicalschools’.WhileErasmusandRotterdamusedthetermin1519inthesenseofreconciliationamongChristians,thetheologianCalixtusofHelmstadtwasthefirsttouse‘syncretism’intheologicaldebatetomeanthesinkingoftheologicaldifferences,atachurchconferenceinThornin1645.Whilesyncretismthussoundslikeapositivestrategytocontainconflictandpromotetoleranceor,inrecentparlance,atleast‘dialogue’,itisstrikinghowpejorativelythetermisoftenusedbythedefendersof‘thetruefaith’.Itisseenasalossofidentity,anillicitcontamination,asignofreligiousdecadence.Intheologicaldisputesitwasgenerallyregardedasabetrayalofprinciples,orasanattempttosecureunityattheexpenseoftruth(1994(b),pp.196-197).

Ontheotherhand,vanderVeeralsorecognizesthattheterm‘syncretism’isoftenused

byhistorians,andcomparativereligionists,todescribethewaysinwhichtraditions

havechangedovertime:

Syncretismisatermwhichincomparativereligionreferstoaprocessofreligiousamalgamation,ofblendingheterogeneousbeliefsandpractices.As

126

such,itisanaspectofreligiousinteractionovertime.Thiscanbeseenassuchabroadprocessthatindeedeveryreligionissyncretistic,sinceitconstantlydrawsuponheterogeneouselementstotheextentthatitisoftenimpossibleforhistorianstounravelwhatcomesfromwhere(1994(b),p.208).

Asaresult,heacknowledgesthecomplexitiesofthistermandwarnsreaderstopay

specialattentiontothecontextinwhichitisused:

Syncretismisatermwithinthatdiscoursewhichacknowledgesthepermeabilityandfluidityofsociallife,butisusedtoevaluateit.Thatevaluationdependsonthecontextinwhichitismade.Syncretismcanbeseen,negatively,asacorruptionoftheabsoluteTruth.Itcanbeseen,positively,asasignoftolerance.Inallthesecasesithastobediscursivelyidentified(vanderVeer,1994(b),p.209).Thequestionthusarisesastowhetherthesyncretism,thatisaccordedto

RamakrishnabyscholarssuchasRaychaudhari,isthesyncretismwhicharguesin

favourofthesuperiorityofparticular‘essential’truthsor,ifinstead,itisusedinthe

waywhichWendyDonigersuggestsitcanbedefined,thatis,“withtheunderstanding

thatitdenotesthefusionofanumberofreligiouselements,noneofwhichisinanyway

apureessence”(Doniger,2009,p.548fn).Interestinglyhowever,inthecaseof

Ramakrishna,thisideaofsyncretismtakesonanotherformbecause,whereashewas

quiteeagertoexperimentwithothertraditions,hewasalsoextremelyclearonthefact

thathehadalreadychosenhispath,thepathofKali.Thus,Ramakrishna’ssyncretism

hadmoretodowithhimadvocatingmultiplepathstoasinglegoalratherthantheidea

thatallpathswerethesame.ThisiswhatmadeRamakrishna’sideassoattractive

duringthistimeof‘continentalcollision’because,herecognizedandrespectedother

traditions’validity,whileneverswervingfromhisownideals.Accordingly,Sen

remarks:

Intruth,Ramakrishna’sideasdidnotconsiderabroadrespectoftolerancetowardsallfaithstobeinnocentofpersonalcommitmenttoone.ThiswouldexplainhiseagernesstolearnthefundamentalsofChristianfaithbuthisratherstiffattitudetowardsMadhusudanDutt,theeminentconverttoChristianity…Ramakrishnaneverquestionedtheprimacyofthisreligiousidentity,hisbasic

127

objectionwastowardsreligiousbigotry…ThepreachingsofRamakrishnathoughquiteunconnectedwithanypoliticalvision,neverthelessinsistonqualitiesofmutualrespectandtolerance(1993,p.309).

Somuchso,thatSenargues,“[t]heUniversalismofRamakrishnaispalpablydifferent

fromthatprofessedbyRammohun,BankimorKeshabChandra.Itshallmarkwasnot

syncretismbuttolerance”(1993,p.308).RamakrishnawasnothingliketheWestern

UniversaliststhatinfluencedIndians,likeRammohanRoyorKeshubchandraSen,since

RamakrishnahadhadnoexposuretoWesterneducation.Therefore,itwouldbemore

accuratetolinkhimwithsyncreticHindutraditionsthatpredatedtheadventofthe

West,andthesubsequentcolonizationofIndia.Raychaudhariacknowledgesthis:

Ramakrishna’sunqualifiedreverenceforallfaiths,includingKeshab’sChristianizeddevotionalism,ChristianityitselfandIslam,linkshimwiththesyncretictraditionoftheIndianmiddleagesratherthanthenineteenth-centuryHindurevivalism(1988,p.236).

KripalisinagreementwiththisassessmentsincehealsoarguesthatRamakrishna

reflectsthe“fluidityofcultureandthemysticaldenialofreligiousdifference”thatwas

evidentinotherhistoricalfiguresinIndia’shistorysuchasthepoetKabir,theSikh

founderGuruNanakandtheMughalemperorAkbar(2004,p.491).Whatmade

RamakrishnaparticularlyrelevantinnineteenthcenturycolonialIndiahowever,isthat

hedidnotlimithimselftoexploringonlytraditionsthathademergedinIndiabutrather

wentontoexperimentwithIslamandChristianityaswell.Forexample,atonepoint,

beforehegainedlocalfameasasaint,RamakrishnaadoptedIslam:

HerepeatedthenameofAllah,woreMuslimclothes,prayedthedailyMuslimprayers,andevenrefusedtovisittheHindudeities.Afterthreedaysofthisdiscipline,itissaidthatheunderwentavisionofabrillianthumanfigurewithalongbeard(thatis,amale)andthenmergedinto“theFourth”stateoftheunconditionedbrahman(Kripal,2004,p.493).

VivekanandaalsospeaksofRamakrishna’sexperimentswithothertraditionsinhis

speech“MyMaster”:

128

Hewantedtounderstandwhatotherreligionswerelike.Sohesoughtteachersofotherreligions.ByteacheryoumustalwaysrememberwhatwemeaninIndia,notabookworm,butamanofrealisation,onewhoknowstruthatfirsthandandnotthroughanintermediary.HefoundaMohammedansaintandplacedhimselfunderhim;heunderwentthedisciplinesprescribedbyhim,andtohisastonishmentfoundthatwhenfaithfullycarriedout,thesedevotionalmethodsledhimtothesamegoalhehadalreadyattained.HegatheredsimilarexperiencefromfollowingthetruereligionofJesustheChrist.Hewenttoallthesectshecouldfind,andwhateverhetookuphewentintowithhiswholeheart.Hedidexactlyashewastold,andineveryinstancehearrivedatthesameresult.Thusfromactualexperience,hecametoknowthatthegoalofeveryreligionisthesame,thateachistryingtoteachthesamething,thedifferencebeinglargelyinmethodandstillmoreinlanguage.Atthecore,allsectsandallreligionshavethesameaim;andtheywereonlyquarrellingfortheirownselfishpurposes–theywerenotanxiousaboutthetruth,butabout“myname”and“yourname”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,pp.173-174).

ThereasonwhytheseexperiencesofRamakrishna’sareespeciallyimportant,inregard

toVivekananda,isbecauseVivekanandahimself,followinginthefootstepsofhis

Master,becameachampionofsyncretism.InaninterviewthatVivekanandagavetothe

SundayTimesinLondonin1896hestated:

IamadiscipleofRamakrishnaParamahamsa,aperfectSannyasinwhoseinfluenceandideasIfellunder.ThisgreatSannyasinneverassumedthenegativeorcriticalattitudetowardsotherreligions,butshowedtheirpositiveside–howtheycouldbecarriedintolifeandpractised(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.190).

Moreover,Ramakrishna’sapproachdiffersquitesubstantiallyfromtheUniversalists

sincehedoesnotsuggestthatotherpathsofferpartialtruths.Rather,heinsiststhatjust

likehispathviabhaktiencompassedallhisneeds,soalsoChristianityandIslamoffered

theirfollowersawaythatwasthewholetruth.Multiplewholetruthsthatco-existin

harmonyremainsanovelthoughteventoday.Infact,Ramakrishna’spositionwasmore

tolerantthanVivekananda’semphasisonVedanta.AfactthatVivekanandahimself

seemedtoacknowledge.Somuchso,thatVivekanandaevenwentontodeclareupon

hisreturntoCalcutta,in1897,afterhissuccessfulexperiencesinAmerica,thathisguru

was“amanwhosewholelifewasaParliamentofReligionsasitshouldbe”

(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.315).ConsideringthepropensitythatbothRamakrishna

129

andVivekanandahadtowardsfindingasenseofcompatibilitywithintraditions,one

mightbewonttoarguethattheirpositionsmaynothavebeenverynuancedorthat

theymayhavetendedtotakeasimplyperfunctoryviewofthesimilaritiesbetween

traditions.However,Kripalisquicktopointout:

ItisalsoimportanttorealizethatRamakrishna’stendencytocomparereligionsdidnotpreventhimfromcriticizingpositionsthathefounddubiousordysfunctionalinonereligionoranother.HewasparticularlyhardontheorthodoxVaishnavasandtheChristians,whoserespectivedoctrinesofsinstruckhimasuselessandultimatelydestructive(2004,p.495).

Similarly,asweshallseeinthefollowingchapters,Vivekanandadidnotshyawayfrom

criticizingothertraditionsevenwhileheheldthemupasvalidpaths,askillheadopted

fromhisguru,whoontheonehand,“rebukedVivekanandaforcriticizingcertain

Tantricsects”whileatthesametimewashimselfcriticalofcertainaspectsof

Theosophy(Raychaudhuri,1988,p.236).However,Ramakrishna,unlikeVivekananda,

neversuggestedthatthedifferentreligiouspathswereahierarchicalsystemthat

culminatedinVedanticphilosophy.Or,thatthereweredifferentstagesto

enlightenmentthatweremarkedbycertainreligiouspaths.Instead,heheldontohis

beliefthathisdevotiontoKaliwastheonlycompletetruthhewouldeverneed.In

contrast,whereasontheonehand,Vivekanandaaccentuatedhisappreciationforthe

similaritiesanddifferenceswithintraditionswhileobservinghisguru’sbehaviour;on

theotherhand,headoptedonlytheaspectsthatsuitedhisownneeds.AsJyotirmaya

SharmaexplainsitinHindutva(2003):

VivekanandadidnotexperiencethisonenessoffaithslikeSriRamakrishna.Hisattemptremainedconfinedtotheintellectualplaneandlackedtheintensityoflivinganotherman’sfaithwithone’s‘wholeheart’.BetweenSriRamakrishnaandSwamiVivekananda,thedisparityinmethodtoarriveatthesameconclusionmadeallthedifference.LikeJesus,SriRamakrishnawasafterallthepuresort,unencumberedbyhistoryorcontext,butimmenselyrichinexperience.VivekanandawaslikePaul,thethunderingsort,whohadtospreadthelightquicklyandeffectively.Heunderstoodwellthatreligionwasnotanintellectualactivitybutanactofrealization.Buthewasoftenimpatient.Hinduismasa

130

tolerantandall-embracingfaithremainedforhimanaspiration,neveranexperience(2003,pp.90-91).

Bethatasitmay,forthepurposesofthepresentdiscussion,itisespeciallyimportantto

notethatwhereasRamakrishnabelievedintheideaofauniversalgoal,hedidnot

arriveatthisconclusionbecauseofWesterninfluences.Instead,Ramakrishna

respondedtothe‘continentalcollision’heexperiencedaroundhimbyrelyingonIndian

traditionsandphilosophywhichthenallowedhimtoarticulatehisposition.Boththese

men,RamakrishnaandVivekananda,usedtoolsprovidedtothembytheirtraditions;

toolswhichthenpermittedthemtoengagewithWesternconceptsthatthey

encounteredduetothis‘continentalcollision’.

Conclusion

TheIndianinfluencesinVivekananda’slifearenotlimitedtotheonescoveredin

thisbriefoverview.Indeed,afterthedeathofhisguru,Vivekanandasetoutonhisown

andtouredIndiaextensively,meetingpeoplefromallwalksoflife,saintsandkings,

peasantsandcitydwellers.Hedescribesmanyofthesewanderingsinhislettersand

speeches,anditisgenerallyacceptedbyscholarsthatitwasbecauseofthesetravels

thathedecidedtomakethetriptoChicago,insearchoffundstohelphisfellow

countrymen.Inthesecrucialyearsbeforeheembarkedonhisremarkablejourneyto

theParliamentofReligionshisinteractionwithWesterncivilizationwaslimitedatbest.

Instead,hesatatthefeetoftheIndiansaintPavhariBaba,learnedSanskritbystudying

Panini’sgrammar,andarguedaboutIndianphilosophywithParmadanandaMitra,a

wealthylearnedbrahminhouseholder.Vivekanandawanderedfromoneholycityto

another,rekindlingoldfriendships,andmakingnewones,asheexperiencedthe

hardshipsandthesubsequentgenerosityofthenativestowardsawanderingmonk

131

betweentheyears1887to1893.Thus,toarguethatinspiteofalltheseIndianswhofed

him,caredforhim,inspiredhimandhonouredhimthatVivekanandawasaproductof

Westerncolonizationisproblematic.EvenRaychaudhari,whoiswontattimestogive

toomuchcredittoWesterninfluences,finallysurmises:

VivekanandaeventuallyacquiredamasterlyknowledgeofIndianphilosophy,buthisbasicbeliefsandreligiousoutlookwereshapedbyhischildhoodenvironment.Philosophicalskepticismcreatedatemporarydisquiet.Itneverdisplacedentirelythefaithhehadacceptedwithoutquestionearlyinlife.…Vivekanandalaterassessedthemoralandspirituallifeofthewesternpeoplesusingyardsticksfamiliarsincechildhood.Hisdiscipleshipofthesaintandscholarlystudiesconfirmedandelaboratedthevaluesimplicitinareligiosityhehadabsorbedalmostwithhismother’smilk(1988,p.238).

Asweturntothenextchapter,whichtracesVivekananda’sexperiencesintheWest,and

howthisinfluencedthewayhepresentedHinduideas,itisimportanttorecognize,that

atleastasfarasVivekanandaisconcerned,Westerncolonizationdidnotusurpor

dominatehisthoughtprocess.Instead,Vivekanandacontinuouslyfoundwaysto

accommodateWesternconceptsandideas,withtheIndiantraditionsthathehadgrown

upwithduringthisperiodof‘continentalcollision’.

132

SwamiVivekananda:AttheParliament

Ataconferencecelebratingthe150thbirthanniversaryofVivekananda,Dr.Kapil

Kapoor,awell-knownscholarofIndianintellectualtraditions,oftheJawaharlalNehru

UniversityinNewDelhi,spokeabouttherichIndianancestrythatpreceded

Vivekananda.53AccordingtoKapoor,Vivekanandadidnotappearontheinternational

scenefromanintellectualvacuum,butrather,wasoneofthemorerecentIndianvoices

inalongtraditionofgreatIndianminds.HearguedthatVivekanandarosetothe

repeatedchallengesmadetohistraditionalbeliefsbyusingWesternterminologyin

ordertobetterdisputethecolonizerswhoweredemoralizingHindusinIndia.Kapoor

contendsthatVivekanandaoutwittedWesternattacksonHindutraditionalideasby

deftlyappropriatingtheverymethodologytheyused.Itisargumentssuchasthesethat

makeitsoimportanttoanalyseVivekananda’stimeattheParliament.Afterall,itwasin

Chicagothathebeganaccomplishingthefeatsthathehasbeencreditedwith.

HighlightingdetailsofVivekananda’sspeechesandwritingswilldemonstratehowhis

successattheParliamentcruciallyimpactedthewayHinduideascametobe‘packaged’

inorderforthemtobebetterappreciated;bothbyWesternaudiencesandbyeducated

colonizedHindus.Consequently,inthischapter,IwilldeterminewhatVivekananda

believedhismessagewasandhowheconveyedittotheWesternworld.Thereafter,in

thefollowingchapter,Iwillexaminehowheadaptedandaccommodatedtheseideas

whenpresentingthemtohisIndianaudiences.InordertoaccomplishthisgoalIwill

concentrateontwosetsoflectures;thespeechesdeliveredbyVivekanandaatthe

ParliamentofReligionsinChicagoin1893,andthespeecheshemadeuponhisreturnto

53KapilKapoor,De-subjugatingTimelessVocabularies-SwamiVivekanandaasan

IntellectualCatalyst,SaturdayInternationalKeynoteSpeaker,USCSchoolofReligion,InternationalConferenceonSwamiVivekananda,October18-19th2013.

133

Indiaintheearlypartof1897.Bycloselyexaminingthesespeechesandpapers,a

relativelyclearpictureofVivekananda’sinterpretationsofcertainkeyconceptsshould

emerge.And,perhapsmoreimportantly,itwillbecomeevidenthowhestrategically

usedthemtosuithisownneeds.OnemightaskwhyIhavechosentheseparticular

periodsinhislifeinordertoofferupawindowintoVivekananda’simpactonHindu

ideas.ThisnarrativethatVivekanandarecountedattheParliamentwillhelpclarifymy

reasons:

Afroglivedinawell.Ithadlivedthereforalongtime.Itwasbornthereandbroughtupthere,andyetwasalittle,smallfrog.…iteverydaycleanedthewaterofallthewormandbacillithatlivedinitwithenergythatwoulddocredittoourmodernbacteriologists.Inthiswayitwentonandbecamealittlesleekandfat.Well,onedayanotherfrogthatlivedintheseacameandfellintothewell.“Whereareyoufrom?”“Iamfromthesea.”“Thesea!Howbigisthat?Isitasbigasmywell?”andhetookaleapfromonesideofthewelltotheother.“Myfriend,”saidthefrogfromthesea,“howdoyoucomparetheseawithyourlittlewell?”Thenthefrogtookanotherleapandasked,“Isyourseasobig?”“Whatnonsenseyouspeak,tocomparetheseawithyourwell!”“Well,then,”saidthefrogofthewell,“nothingcanbebiggerthanmywell;therecanbenothingbiggerthanthis;thisfellowisaliar,soturnhimout.”Thathasbeenthedifficultyallthewhile.IamaHindu.Iamsittinginmyownlittlewellandthinkingthatthewholeworldismylittlewell.TheChristiansitsinhislittlewellandthinksthewholeworldishiswell.TheMohammedansitsinhislittlewellandthinksthatisthewholeworld(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.4-5).ThisanecdoteillustrateswhatVivekanandasawasbeingtheprimaryproblem

thatemergedwhentraditionsthathad,forcenturies,existedinarelativestateof

isolation,triedtoengageinmeaningfuldiscussions.Consequently,thereareanumber

ofsubtlemessagesthatcanbedrawnoutofthisnarrative.First,Vivekanandacouldbe

comparedtothefrogfromtheseawhoknewthatallphilosophictruthswerenot

containedinasinglewellandthereforetooktheopportunitytoeducatehisfellowfrog

oftheworldofideasthatexistedindistantlands.Secondly,Vivekanandaimpliesthathe

134

wascomparinghisaudiencetothefroginthewellwho,despitebeingtoldthatthere

wasaworldoutsidehisrealm,wasreluctanttoacknowledgethistruth.Thus,we

understandthatforVivekanandathismoment,whenpeoplefrommultiplewellshad

cometogetherattheParliament,wasaturningpoint,anopportunitythatneededtobe

grabbedwithbothhandsandnotsimplysquanderedaway.Indeed,inhisdescriptionof

therolethatVivekanandaplayedinIndianhistory,WilhelmHalbfassstates:

VivekanandawasawareofthefactthatinhisundertakingtocarryIndianspiritualityintotheWest,hehadseizedanhistoricalopportunitycreatedbyEuropeitself,hehadtoutilizechannelsofcommunicationwhichwereprovidedbytheWest(1988,p.242).

ThesecondmomentinVivekananda’slife,thatboreequalimportance,waswhen

hereturnedtohishomeland.Now,hewasthefrogfromthesea,who,ifoneshouldwant

totakethisstorytooneofitslogicalconclusions,camebackwithtalestotellofthe

sightshehadseen,andthelessonshehadlearnedandimparted.Itwasinthesetwo

momentsthatVivekanandawasathismostinfluential.Initially,whenhefoundhimself

onaworldstageasaspeakerattheprestigiousParliamentofReligions,surroundedby

dignitariesfromacrosstheglobe.Andthereafter,uponhisreturntoIndia,afterhis

initialWesterntrip,whenhecamebackintheroleofaconqueringhero.And,whilstthis

maynothavebeenaworldstage,itwasneverthelessamomentintimewhenhehadthe

eyesofhiscountryturnedtowardshim.54Thesetwospecificperiodsconveyhow

VivekanandainfluencedthetheoreticalframeworktheWestutilizedtounderstand

Indiaanditstraditionsand,perhapsmoreimportantly,howtheHinduschoseto

representthemselvestooutsiders.TheseeventsinVivekananda’slifehighlighthowhis

methodologyseemedtoanticipatetheneedthatsocietywouldhavefor‘consumer

54ForadetailedreviewofthewayVivekanandawasportrayedinIndianpublicationsbeforehisreturnsee“SwamiVivekanandainIndianNewspapers1893-1896”(Chattopadhyaya,1999,pp.134-195).

135

friendlypackaging’55;aneedthatwasmetefficientlybythewayVivekanandaframed

hisinterpretationofIndia,Indians,andIndiantraditions.Unfortunately,thisapproach

alsoresultedinmanycasualtiesthatcontinuetoeffectIndiatoday.

TheSwamiGetsAcclimated

ThefirstspeechthatVivekanandagaveattheParliamentwasrelativelyshort,

andsimplyskimmedonthetopicsthathewoulddelveintowithmoredetailafewdays

later.However,beforeweexaminethisspeechitisimportanttonoteherethat

VivekanandaspentsixweeksasthehouseguestofvariousAmericanfamiliesbeforehis

firstspeechattheParliament.ThisperiodwasveryrelevantforVivekanandabecauseit

allowedhimtoacclimatizehimselftoAmericansocialnormswhichimpactedthe

fluiditywithwhichhespokeattheParliament.Initially,Vivekanandaseemedtobeata

lossastohowtoproceedonAmericansoil.Eventuallyhowever,hewasfortunatetobe

takenunderthewingofsomeinfluentialAmericanstherebygivinghimtheopportunity

totesthisarguments,andnarrativestyle,withsmallerWesternaudiencesbefore

havingtofacetheworldatlarge.Perhapsanexamplewouldhelptoclarifyhow

Vivekanandaadjustedhismethods,onceherealizedthatifhiscritiqueofWestern

societywasnotsubtle,thenitwouldonlyservetoupsethisaudienceandcausethemto

distancethemselvesfromhim.

ThefollowinganecdoteisfromMarieLouiseBurke’ssix-volumeworkSwami

VivekanandaintheWest:NewDiscoveries(2013).Here,shereportsaboutatalkthat

tookplaceinaNewEnglandvillageafewweeksbeforetheParliament.Thisdialogue,

55Irealizethatthisisananachronisticuseoftheterm‘consumerfriendlypackaging’butitseemsratherappropriateconsideringthewayEasternphilosophyhasbecomea‘hotcommodity’intheWest.

136

whichhasbeenreprintedhereinitsentirety,drawsattentiontohowpivotalthose

initialweekswereforVivekananda.Itgavehimtheopportunitytoexperimentwith

certainfacetsofhistalkingpoints,beforealiveWesternaudience,priortohisdebutat

theParliament.Furthermore,itservesasanexcellentcontrasttothewordsthathe

spokeonthatworldstage,efficientlyshowcasinghowquicklyhelearnedthebestway

to‘package’hiswordsandmessage.

“Ah,theEnglish,”hesaid,“onlyjustalittlewhileagotheyweresavages,…thevermincrawledontheladies’bodices,..andtheyscentedthemselvestodisguisetheabominableodoroftheirpersons….Mosthor-r-ible!Evennow,theyarebarelyemergingfrombarbarism.”“Nonsense,”saidoneofhisscandalizedhearers,“thatwasatleastfivehundredyearsago.”“AnddidInotsay‘alittlewhileago’?Whatareafewhundredyearswhenyoulookattheantiquityofthehumansoul?”Thenwithaturnoftone,quitereasonableandgentle,“Theyarequitesavage,”hesaid.“Thefrightfulcold,thewantandprivationoftheirnorthernclimate,”goingonmorequicklyandwarmly,“hasmadethemwild.Theyonlythinktokill….Whereistheirreligion?TheytakethenameofthatHolyOne,theyclaimtolovetheirfellowmen,theycivilize–byChristianity!-No!Itistheirhungerthathascivilizedthem,nottheirGod.Theloveofmanisontheirlips,butintheirheartsthereisnothingbutevilandeveryviolence.‘Iloveyoumybrother,Iloveyou!’..andallthewhiletheycut

histhroat!Theirhandsareredwithblood.”…Thengoingonmoreslowly,hisbeautifulvoicedeepeningtillitsoundedlikeabell,“ButthejudgmentofGodwillfalluponthem.‘Vengeanceismine;Iwillrepay,saiththeLord,’anddestructioniscoming.WhatareyourChristians?Notonethirdoftheworld.LookatthoseChinese,millionsofthem.TheyarethevengeanceofGodthatwilllightuponyou.TherewillbeanotherinvasionoftheHuns,”addingwithalittlechuckle,“theywillsweepoverEurope,theywillnotleaveonestonestandinguponanother.Men,women,children,allwillgoandthedarkageswillcomeagain.”Hisvoicewasindescribablysadandpitiful;thensuddenlyandflippantly,droppingtheseer,“Me,-Idon’tcare!Theworldwillriseupbetterfromit,butitiscoming.ThevengeanceofGod,itiscomingsoon.”“Soon?”theyallasked.“Itwillnotbeathousandyearsuntilitisdone.”Theydrewabreathofrelief.Itdidnotseemimminent.“AndGodwillhavevengeance,”hewenton.“Youmaynotseeitinreligion,youmaynotseeitinpolitics,butyoumustseeitinhistory,andasithasbeen,itwillcometopass.Ifyougrinddownthepeople,youwillsuffer.WeinIndiaaresufferingthevengeanceofGod.Lookuponthesethings.Theygrounddownthosepoorpeoplefortheirownwealth,theyheardnotthevoiceofdistress,theyatefromgoldandsilverwhenthepeoplecriedforbread,andtheMohammedanscameuponthemslaughteringandkilling:slaughteringandkillingtheyoverranthem.Indiahasbeenconqueredagainandagainforyearsandlastandworstof

137

allcametheEnglishman.YoulookaboutIndia,whathastheHindooleft?Wonderfultemples,everywhere.WhathastheMohammedanleft?Beautifulpalaces.WhathastheEnglishmanleft?Nothingbutmoundsofbrokenbrandybottles!AndGodhashadnomercyuponmypeoplebecausetheyhadnomercy.Bytheircrueltytheydegradedthepopulace,andwhentheyneededthemthecommonpeoplehadnostrengthtogivefortheiraid.IfmancannotbelieveintheVengeanceofGod,hecertainlycannotdenytheVengeanceofHistory.AnditwillcomeupontheEnglish;theyhavetheirheelsonournecks,theyhavesuckedthelastdropofourbloodfortheirownpleasures,theyhavecarriedawaywiththemmillionsofourmoney,whileourpeoplehavestarvedbyvillagesandprovinces.AndnowtheChinamanisthevengeancethatwillfalluponthem;iftheChineserosetodayandswepttheEnglishintothesea,astheywelldeserve,itwouldbenomorethanjustice.”Andthen,havinghadhissay,theSwamiwassilent.Ababbleofthin-voicedchatterroseabouthim,towhichhelistened,apparentlyunheeding.Occasionallyhecasthiseyeuptotheroofandrepeatedsoftly,“Shiva!Shiva!”andthelittlecompany,shakenanddisturbedbythecurrentofpowerfulfeelingsandvindictivepassionwhichseemedtobeflowinglikemoltenlavabeneaththesilentsurfaceofthisstrangebeing,brokeup,perturbed(Burke,2013,pp.31-33,emphasisinoriginal).ThisratherdramaticexchangethatisrecountedbyBurke,whoisafollowerof

Vivekananda,andwhoseworkshavebeenprintedundertheauspicesofthe

RamakrishnaMission,helpstogiveusaninsightintothewayVivekanandaoccasionally

retaliatedwhenaddressingissuessuchascolonizationandgreed.Thatbeingsaid,

whereashisangerandfrustrationhereareapparent,itisalsonecessarytonotethat

anecdotessuchasthesearefewandfarbetween.Indeed,Vivekanandawasnotusually

wonttospeakinglikethisinpublic,whichisevidencedbythefactthatevenduringthe

sixweeksbeforetheParliamenthegainedmanyadmirersandfollowers.Somuchso,

thathewasabletoconvincetheaudienceathisfirstlectureinanAmericanchurch

(whichalsotookplaceduringthoserelevantsixweeks)tomakeaverystrange,forits

time,donationthatBurkecommentson:

thiswasundoubtedlythefirstcollection“foraHeathencollegetobecarriedononstrictlyheathenprinciples”evertobesolemnlycontributedtobyaNewEnglandcongregation;andnoonebutSwamijicouldhavebroughtsuchamarveltopass(2013,p.39).

138

Vivekanandafrequentlygivesmeaningtothephrase‘anironfistinavelvetglove’

throughouthiscareerwherebyhedeliversmanyapowerfulmessagewithout

seeminglyleavingamark.Askillthatweshallseeherepeatedlydemonstrated

throughouthistimeattheParliament.Obviously,thisdoesnotmeantosuggestthat

Vivekananda’spublicspeakingskills,andhiscomfortlevelwhenspeakingtolarge

audiences,arenottobecommended.Instead,thisnarrativeshouldsimplyserveto

remindreadersthathewasfortunateenoughtohavehadafewweeksofintense

discussionswithsomeprominentAmericans,suchastheauthorKateSanbornandDr

JohnHenryWright,ProfessorofGreekatHarvardUniversity,whichnodoubtprepared

himforthisendeavour.Thisisreflectedinhowcarefullyhechosehiswordsatthe

Parliament,afactthatishighlightedbycontemporarynewspapers,manyofwhich

reportonthewarmwelcomeVivekanandareceivedandhislighteningrisetofame.56

“ResponsetoWelcome”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.3-4)

ThefirstspeechthatVivekanandagaveattheParliamentwasinresponsetohis

welcomeonthe11thofSeptember1893.Hebeganbyaddressingtheaudienceas

“sistersandbrothersofAmerica.”Thiswasobviouslynotacommonwaytoaddress

audiencesintheWestsinceReverendJohnHenryBarrows,thechairmanoftheWorld

ParliamentofReligionsstates:

WhenMr.Vivekanandaaddressedtheaudienceas“sistersandbrothersofAmerica,”therearoseapealofapplausethatlastedforseveralminutes(1893,p.101).

56Forexample,anewsreporttitledintheBostonEveningTranscript,September30,1893,states“Heisagreatfavoriteattheparliament,fromthegrandeurofhissentimentsandhisappearanceaswell.Ifhemerelycrossestheplatformheisapplauded.”Similarly,theCritic,October7,1893,states“nooneexpressedsowellthespiritoftheParliament,itslimitationsanditsfinestinfluence,asdidtheHindoomonk”(ascitedinVivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.472-475).

139

OnecanonlyimaginethatVivekananda,dressedinhislongorangerobesandturban,

musthavebeenquiteasighttoseeleavingnodoubtthatthiswasarepresentativefrom

adistantland.Yet,herewasthisexoticman,addressingtheaudienceinawaythat

immediatelyindicatedhisdesiretocreateafamilialbondwithhislisteners.

Vivekanandathengoesontointroducehimselfasarepresentative“ofthemostancient

orderofmonksintheworld”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.3)therebyestablishingboth

hisownancestryandhistradition’sancientheritage.Thisisfollowedbyhimthanking

hisaudience“inthenameofthemotherofreligions”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.3).It

ishardtoimaginethatthischoiceofwordswasnotintentionalsince,bystatingthathe

belongedtoatraditionwhichhebelievedtobethe‘motherofreligions’,hewas

essentiallyarguingthattherewasahierarchyamongstthespeakerspresent,andthat

heplacedthetraditionthatherepresented,atthetopofthatsystem.

Thisargumentofantiquity,wherebyVivekanandaclaimsthat‘Hinduism’isthe

‘motherofallreligions’sinceitisthemostancient,isatopicthatwasbeinghotly

debatedinthe19thcentury.In1859,CharlesDarwinpublishedhismuch-celebrated

theoriesofevolutioninOnTheOriginofSpecies.Theseideaswerethenappliedby

Orientalistswhenstudyingother‘religions’.Oneofthemostcommonargumentsused

inthe19thcentury,wasthat‘religion’haddevelopedfromprimitivepaganideastothe

sophisticatedideologyofChristianity.EricJ.Sharpecontendsthatthesearchfororigins

hadbecomeapopularlensbywhichWesternscholarsstudiedEasterntraditions:

Intheevolutionaryschemereligioncametobeviewedentirelyintermsofhistory…ScholarssuchasTaylor,Marett,Frazer,JevonCairdandMaxMuellerconcentratedontheanalysisoflegend,myth,magic,ritualandphilosophy.Interestcametobecenteredmoreandmoreonthe‘origins’ofreligionviewedasahumanfunction,auniversalfactofhumanexperience–andonthe‘primitive’religions…Bytheendofthecentury…itwascomingtobebelievedthatallreligionscouldbearrangedin‘stages’corresponding–forthemethodwaspureanalogy–onthe‘stages’ofbiologicalevolution(ascitedinBasu,2002,p.46).

140

ItwasnotonlyDarwin’spremisethatinfluencedthesethinkersbutrather,theywere

alsorespondingtotheoriespresentedafewdecadesearlierbyG.FHegel.AsNandy

pointsout(seeChapter1),HegelsurmisedthatIndiahadremainedintheinfancystage

ofhumanhistory,andassuch,Indianreligiousideasweretobeunderstoodas

immatureandundeveloped.Kingobserves:

Hegel’srepresentationofIndiaisboundupwithhisownconceptionofhistoryastheunfoldingoftheworld-spiritandofsystematicphilosophyasamovementtowardsaconsciousnessoffreedom.Withinthisuniversalpictureofworldhistory,dividedbyHegelintochildhood,adolescenceandmaturity,Indiarepresentedthefirstperiodinhumanhistory–thechildhoodofmankind.ThusIndiahadnothingtocontributetomodernity(1999,p.124).

Thiswasanegative,andindeed,condescendingviewofEasternideas.Infact,what

Hegel’shypothesisdemonstratesisthatwhereasmanyEuropeanscholarswerewilling

toacceptthatcivilizationmayhaveoriginatedintheEast,theyalsofirmlybelievedthat

thesebeginningswerestuntedandthatitwasonlyintheWesternworldthat

civilizationhadmatured.Accordingly,Kingcontends:

Thisnostalgiafororigins,usuallygroundedinanevolutionaryhistoryofhumankind,tendedtoconceiveofIndiaasathrowbacktothe‘childhood’ofhumankind.WhileEuropeandtheNewWorldwereundergoingenormoussocialandpoliticalchanges,Indiaseemedtohaveremainedunchangedforthousandsofyears,representingacrucialexampleofstaticarchaismwithwhichthedynamicmodernityoftheWestcouldbesuccessfullycontrasted(1999,p.118).

ManyOrientalistsevenwentasfarastoarguethatChristianitywasthebestexampleof

amodern‘religion’sinceitsethicswerecompatiblewithreasonandscience.In

ReligiousRevivalismasNationalistDiscourse(2002),ShamitaBasunotes:

ThemissionarystrategywastomakeChristianityappearasanapostleofmodernity,as[Alexander]Duffregarded‘trueliteratureandtruesciences’tobe‘ourverybestauxiliaries’.ThediscourseofProtestantChristianity,particularlyasitexistedwithintheEvangelicalordersinthenineteenthcentury,wasnotjustvalorizedasareligion,butasamoralsystem,abearerofethicalvaluesthatwereuniversal.Itwasthroughthisdiscourseof‘themodernastheChristian’thatChristianitycametoextrapolatesomeoftheEnlightenmentconceptionswithinitsownliturgy(2002,pp.46-47).

141

Itisagainstthisbackdrop,whichinvokedimagesofinfancyandimmaturity,thatmany

ChristianEuropeanscholarsdevelopedtheirnarrativeofWesternsuperioritywhen

referringtoHindutraditions.Balagangadharaconciselyhighlightswhysuch

terminologyisproblematic:

Aslightbitofanunpackingofthisnotionof‘childhood’and‘thecradleofcivilization’isnecessarytounderstandwhattheGermanRomanticswerereallysaying.Irrespectiveofwhatanysinglethinkersaidordidnotsay,eachofthemhadacceptedtheframeworkofauniversalhistoryofhumankind.Whethertheylikeditornot,therewasaconsensusthattheEuropeanculturehadmatured.Onemaymourntheabsenceofinnocenceandspontaneityofchildhood;onemaylongtorediscovertheabsenceofaffectationanddeceitinthechildhood;butitremainsincontrovertiblethatthisishowanadultlooksback.BycallingtheIndianculturethechildhoodofMan,theRomanticthinkersdidnotgobeyondoragainsttheEnlightenmenttradition–butmerelyextendeditwithafancifultwist.Thesamereflectionsareapplicabletotheappellation‘cradleofcivilization’.Tousethatwithrespecttoaculturelongdeadandgone,liketheGreekorRoman,mightbeconstruedasawayofpayinghomage,tribute,orjustacknowledgementtothecontributionsofthepast.Whatdoesitmeanwhenusedtocharacterizealivingculture?Itcanonlymeanthatthosewholiveinthisculturearestillintheircradles–andhavebeenthereduringthelastthousandyears–unliketheirEuropeancounterparts(2005,p.124).

AsfarasVivekanandaisconcerned,onesimplyhastoreadhisremarksonHegel

inTheCompleteWorkstolearnthathewasnotonlyfamiliarwithhistheories,butthat

hevehementlydisagreedwiththem.Forexample,hisdisdainforHegelwasapparent

whenhenotonlyrejectedHegel’stheories,but,addinginsulttoinjury,alsoarguedthat

Hegel’spremisehadalreadybeendiscardedbyearlyIndianphilosophers:

JustasyoufindtheattemptsofHegelandSchopenhauerinGermanphilosophy,soyouwillfindtheverysameideasbroughtforwardinancientIndia.Fortunatelyforus,Hegelianismwasnippedinthebudandnotallowedtosproutandcastitsbanefulshootsoverthismotherlandofours.Hegel’soneideaisthattheone,theabsolute,isonlychaos,andthattheindividualizedformisgreater.Theworldisgreaterthanthenon-world,Samsaraisgreaterthansalvation(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.342).

142

Incontrast,VivekanandaembracedDarwin’stheoryofevolutionbutonlywiththe

caveatthattheancientIndianphilosopher,Patanjali,hadalsoputforthasimilartheory

ofevolution:

YouhaveheardofthedoctrineofphysicalevolutionpreachedintheWesternworldbytheGermanandEnglishsavants.Ittellsusthatthebodiesofthedifferentanimalsarereallyone;thedifferencesthatweseearebutdifferentexpressionsofthesameseries;thatfromthelowestwormtothehighestandmostsaintlymanitisbutone–theonechangingintotheotherandsoon,goingupandup,higherandhigher,untilitattainsperfection.Wehadthatideaalso(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.406).

Indeed,forVivekananda,theseideasofevolutionoriginatedintheVedas;“[t]heideaof

evolutionwastobefoundintheVedaslongbeforetheChristianera;butuntilDarwin

saiditwastrue,itwasregardedasamereHindusuperstition”(Vivekananda,2009,

vol.8,p.25).AsVivekanandaexplainedit,Indiamayhavebeenthe‘childhoodof

humanity’andthe‘cradleofcivilization’,butthatdidnotmeanthatithadnotmatured

asWesternChristianscholarswerewonttoargue.Instead,forVivekananda,Indiawas

whereallvaluableknowledgehadfirstoriginated.Indeed,accordingtoVivekananda,

this‘continentalcollision’hadbeenoccurringforcenturies:

Onceinfarremoteantiquity,theIndianphilosophy,comingincontactwithGreekenergy,ledtotheriseofthePersian,theRomanandothergreatnations.AftertheinvasionofAlexandertheGreat,thesetwogreatwaterfallscollidingwitheachother,delugednearlyhalfoftheglobewithspiritualtides,suchasChristianity.Again,asimilarcomingling,resultingintheimprovementandprosperityofArabia,laidthefoundationofmodernEuropeancivilization(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,p.402).

Vivekanandaisprobablybasinghisargumentsregardingtherelationshipbetween

India,andtheAncientGreco-Romanculture,onthefactthatphilologistsinthe18th

centuryhadrevealedadirectcorrelationbetweenSanskritandEuropeanlanguages.In

TheShapeofAncientThought,(2002)ThomasMcEvilleyexplores,ingreatdetail,how

theGreeksandtheIndianshadasharedphilosophicancestry.McEvilleypointsoutthat

143

thediscoveryofthelinguisticconnectionbetweenSanskritandEuropeanlanguages

wasliterally‘explosive’:

Thesituationreachedexplosivevolatilityin1786,twoyearsafterthefoundingoftheAsiaticSocietyofBengal(latertheRoyalAsiaticSociety).ThebombshellwasSirWilliamJones’shistoricassertiontoameetingoftheSociety“thatnophilologercouldexaminethemallthree[theLatin,Greek,andSanskritlanguages]withoutbelievingthemtohavesprungfromsomecommonsource”(2002,p.xxi).

Thisledtofurtherinvestigationsonhowtheseancientcivilizationsmayhavealso

sharedotherbasicideologies.AsMcEvilleyexplainsit,atleastinitially,therewasgreat

excitementamongstacertainsectionofWesternintellectualswhobelievedthatIndia

mayverywellbethe‘cradleofcivilization’:

AtaboutthetimeofJones’sdiscovery–roughlythemomentwhentheLateEnlightenmentwasgivingwaytotheRomanticera–Westernscholarsundertookaquestfortheabsolutesourceofcivilization,whichwastobediscoveredbymeanssuchasphilology,and,later,archeology.AsRaymondSchwabhasargued,thediscoveryofthelinguisticcognatenessofIndiatotheWestoccurredattheperfectmomenttointersectwiththatsearch.Forabriefperiodofaboutthirty-fiveyears–about1785-1829–theleadingcandidatefortheUr-civilizationwasIndia.InthatheadyIndocentricphase,ontheheelsofJones’sepochalpronouncement,itseemedthatthewesternworld’ssearchforitsorigin–thatis,itstrueself–wouldbefulfilledbyplumbingthemysteryoffar-offandlittle-knownIndia.IndiasomehowheldthekeytotheWest’squestforultimateself-knowledge.Schlegeldeclaredenthusiastically:“Everything,yes,everythingwithoutexceptionhasitsorigininIndia.”ThisconvictionledhimtorespondtoJones’sdiscoverybydeclaringthatSanskritwasnotonlycognatewith,thatis,asiblingof,GreekandLatin;infactitwasthe“motherlanguageofGreek,Latin,PersianandGerman.”Notdissimilarly,Schopenhauer,inlinewithhisbeliefin“theunderlyingunityofallthings,”thoughtthatbothChristianityandtheAncientEgyptianreligionhadoriginatedinIndia(2002,p.xxii).

Eventuallyhowever,withthediscoveryoftheRosettaStoneinEgyptin1821,Indiawas

displacedasthesourceofallcivilization.Whatisperhapsmoreimportanttonotehere

however,isthatthisidea,thatIndiawasthe‘cradleofcivilization’didnotsitwellwith

colonialobjectives.Afterall,theBritishdefendedtheirrighttocolonizewiththe

144

argumentthattheywereupliftingafallenrace.IfIndiawasnotinneedof‘saving’then

theycouldlosetheirmoralargumentfordomination.AsMcEvilleyputsit:

IntimeanaccountwasworkedoutthatdissipatedtheproblemoftheIndo-EuropeannessofSanskritbyassertingthattheAryanshadindeedbeenwhitepeople,buttheyhadbeenabsorbedintoanonwhitematrix,leavingtheirlanguageintactwhiletheirskincolor–andwithittheirculturalidentity–wasmostlylost.ModernIndians,then,arenotreallywhitepeople,thoughtheyusealanguageleftbehindbyearlierwhiteconquerors,andtheracialjustificationforcolonizationdoesapplyafterall:TheBritishweregoingintofinishupthejobtheAryanshadbegunlongago.TheGreekcolonizationofIndiahadreinforcedtheoriginalAryaninput,butittoohadbeendissolvedandabsorbedbythelargerbrownbodyofhumanity.TheGreekinfusionofwhiteness,comingaftertheAryan,constitutedatraditionwhichtheBritishcouldhonorablycarryon.AsoneBritishimperialistauthorwrote:“ExOccidenteImperium;thegeniusofEmpireinIndiahascometoherfromtheWest;andcanbemaintainedonlybyconstantinfusionsoffreshbloodfromthesamesource.”JamesMill’sidea,fromthesameperiod,that“theIndiancivilizationneverprosperedexceptunderforeigndomination”seemedaclearjustificationforimperialismasacivilizingmission(2002,p.xxiii).

ItseemslikelythatVivekanandawasrespondingtotheseargumentswhenheclaimed

thatIndiawasanancientcivilizationthatwas,inactuality,responsibleforimpacting

Westernthought.Ofcourse,Vivekanandawasnotthefirst,northeonlyIndian,tobe

pushingbackagainsttheseideaspresentedbynineteenthcenturyEuropeanscholars.

Instead,therewereotherHinduscholarswhoforciblyfoughtfirewithfireby

presentingtheirowntheoriesofHindusuperiority.Forinstance,theAryaSamajwere

similarlyengagedinchallengingWesternclaimsofsuperiority:

Locatingthe‘essence’oftheHindutraditioninorigins(arche),inthiscasetheancientVedas,however,wasalsoprevalentamongthenineteenthcenturyHindureformersasanationalistandanti-colonialstratagem.ForDayanandaSaraswatiandtheAryaSamaj,forinstance,theSamhitaswerethesourceofalllegitimatemanifestationsofHinduismandalsoprovidedevidenceofthesuperiorityofHinduismover‘younger’religionssuchasChristianity.ForSaraswati,ChristianitywasapoorimitationoftheHindureligion.Indeed,allknowledge,hebelieved,couldbedemonstratedtohaveoriginatedinMotherIndiafromtimeimmemorial,includingmoderntechnologiessuchasaircraft,long-forgottenandnowclaimedtobethesoleinventionofthecolonizingWesterners(King,1999,p.119).

145

ThishelpsexplainVivekananda’sstrategy,ofcalling‘Hinduism’the‘motherofall

religions’,whichwasprobablyintentional,sincethisimmediatelyputtoresttheidea

thatIndiawassimplythe‘cradleofcivilization’.Instead,hearguedthatIndiawasalso

the‘handthatrockedthecradle’!

LetusturnbacknowtoVivekananda’sspeechwherewefindthatheisthanking

hisaudience(andthisisjustinthefirstparagraph),“inthenameofmillionsand

millionsofHindupeopleofallclassesandsects”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.3).

Vivekanandaadeptlyclaimedforhimselfthetitleof‘thevoiceofIndia’.Aninteresting

tactic,especiallysincehewasnottheonlyIndianpresentattheParliament.Besides

him,tomentionjustafew,therewasP.CMazumdarofCalcuttawhowasrepresenting

theBrahmoSamajalongwithB.B.NagarkarofBombay;AngarikaDharmapala,the

GeneralSecretaryoftheMaha-BodhiSocietyrepresentingtheSouthernBuddhistsof

Ceylon(nowSriLanka);andrepresentingtheJaincommunityofBombaywereMuni

AtmaramjiandVirchandA.Gandhi(Barrows,1893,pp.64-65).However,thisployof

Vivekananda’sobviouslyworkedbecauseitisVivekanandawhoisrememberedasthe

‘voiceofIndia’.InTheWorld’sParliamentofReligions:TheEast/WestEncounter,

Chicago,1893,(2009)whichoffersacontemporaryin-depthanalysisoftheParliament,

RichardHughesSeagerreports:

TohisAmericanaudience,Vivekananda’sphysicalpresenceevokedasenseofbothfamiliarityanddifference…TheDailyInter-Oceannotedthat“greatcrowdsofpeople,themostofwhomwerewomen,pressedaroundthedoorsleadingtotheHallofColumbus…forithadbeenannouncedthatSwamiVivekananda,thepopularHindoo[sic]monkwholookssomuchlikeMcCullough’sOthellowastospeak.”Moresubstantially,MerwinMarie-Snell,BishopJohnKeane’ssecretary,wasquotedassayingVivekanandawas“beyondquestionthemostpopularandinfluentialmanintheParliament(2009,p.111).PerhapsthemostremarkableaspectofVivekananda’spopularityatthe

Parliamentwasthathegainedthispositiondespitethefactthathepullednopunches.

146

Indeed,inthisshortintroductoryspeech,Vivekanandafindsawaytoclaim,forIndia,

themantleoftoleranceandrespectforothertraditionsthatwasbeingtoted,bysome,

astheParliament’sgreatestachievement.57Accordingly,heproclaims:

Iamproudtobelongtoanationwhichhasshelteredthepersecutedandtherefugeesofallreligionsandallnationsoftheearth.IamproudtotellyouthatwehavegatheredtoourbosomthepurestremnantofIsraelites,whocametoSouthernIndiaandtookrefugewithusintheveryyearinwhichtheirholytemplewasshatteredtopiecesbyRomantyranny.IamproudtobelongtothereligionwhichhasshelteredandisstillfosteringtheremnantofthegrandZoroastriannation(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.3-4).

ByhighlightingthatacertainJewishsect,andasubstantialParsicommunity,hadfound

ahomeinIndiaVivekanandawasabletoarguethatthisconstitutedalegitimateclaim

forIndianstobedeclaredatolerantpeoplewhoembracedall‘religions’.Indeed,this

premiseofVivekananda’s,wherebyhearguedthat‘Hinduism’acceptedalltraditionsas

valid,wastobeoneofthecornerstonesofhisargumentswhileintheWest.He

contendedthat‘Hinduism’wasuniquebecauseofthefactthatitrecognizedtheneedfor

manypaths,orstreams,of‘religion’.Consequently,sinceHindusagreedthatallthese

pathsandstreamswereheadedtowardsasinglegoal,thismadethemthemost

‘religiously’advancedpeople.ToexaminetheseclaimsofVivekanandamoreclosely

however,afewdefinitionsandclarificationsarenecessary.Assuch,Iwillattemptto

shedsomelightonwhatVivekanandameantwhenheusedwordslike‘religion’,God,

Hinduand‘Hinduism’.Termsthat,aswehavealreadydiscussedinthefirsttwo

chapters,arestillhotlycontestedconceptsincontemporarytimes.

57“DiversityinunitywasthedominantidealthatinformedtheaspirationsoftheParliament’sleaders.Thiswasreflectedintheiroptimisticvisionofco-operationamongallreligionsonasharedplatformoftoleranceandsocialprogress”(Seager,2009,p.xiii)

147

Religion,God,Hinduand‘Hinduism’

ItisimportanttomentionherethatVivekanandausedthese,andotherWestern

termsliberally,anddidnotalwaysfinditnecessarytoexplainwhattheseconcepts

meant,orthecontextinwhichhewasutilizingthem.Indeed,eventhoughhe

acknowledgedthatusingtheEnglishlanguagetodescribeIndianideascouldoftentimes

beproblematic,henonethelessoptedforthese‘inadequate’labelsbecausehewantedto

reachawideraudience:

AfriendcriticizedtheuseofEuropeantermsofphilosophyandreligioninmyaddresses.IwouldhavebeenverygladtouseSanskritterms;itwouldhavebeenmuchmoreeasy,asbeingtheonlyperfectvehicleofreligiousthought.ButthefriendforgotthatIwasaddressinganaudienceofWesternpeople(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,p.344).

Fortunately,however,Vivekanandadidoccasionallyspeakabouttheparametersthathe

setaroundtheseWesternconcepts.Forexample,hedescribedwhattheterm‘religion’

meanttohim:

Ineveryreligiontherearethreeparts:philosophy,mythology,andritual.Philosophyofcourseistheessenceofeveryreligion;mythologyexplainsandillustratesitbymeansofthemoreorlesslegendarylivesofgreatmen,storiesandfablesofwonderfulthings,andsoon;ritualgivestothatphilosophyastillmoreconcreteform,sothateveryonemaygraspit–ritualisinfactconcretisedphilosophy(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.72).

Inaspeechtitled“TheNecessityofReligion”heacknowledgedthatvarioustheoriesof

‘religion’hadbeenpresentedbypreviousscholarsandhighlightedthetwothathefelt

heldthemostsubstance:

Twotheorieshavegainedsomeacceptanceamongstmodernscholars.Oneisthespirittheoryofreligion,theothertheevolutionoftheideaoftheInfinite.Onepartymaintainsthatancestorworshipisthebeginningofreligiousideas;theother,thatreligionoriginatesinthepersonificationofthepowersofnature(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.57).

Vivekanandathenwentontopresenthisowntheory:

Thesetwoviews,thoughtheyseemtobecontradictory,canbereconciledonathirdbasis,which,tomymind,istherealgermofreligion,andthatIproposeto

148

callthestruggletotranscendthelimitationsofthesenses(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.59).

Furthermore,forVivekananda‘religion’wasnotanoptionalstateofbeingandhewould

haveprobablyagreedwithMirceaEliadethatmanisessentially‘Homoreligiosus’:

Itismybeliefthatreligiousthoughtisinman’sveryconstitution,somuchsothatitisimpossibleforhimtogiveupreligionuntilhecangiveuphismindandbody,untilhecanstopthoughtandlife.Aslongasamanthinks,thisstrugglemustgoon,andsolongmanmusthavesomeformofreligion(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,pp.203-204).

Intheabove-mentionedspeech,healsoarguedthat‘religion’formedthebasicfabricof

everysociety,pastorpresent:

Ofalltheforcesthathaveworkedandarestillworkingtomouldthedestiniesofthehumanrace,none,certainly,ismorepotentthanthat,themanifestationofwhichwecallreligion.Allsocialorganizationshaveasabackground,somewhere,theworkingsofthatpeculiarforce,andthegreatestcohesiveimpulseeverbroughtintoplayamongsthumanunitshasbeenderivedfromthispower(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.57).

Hisall-encompassingtheoriesabout‘religion’didnotendtherehowever,becausehe

alsopresentedautopianinterpretationofthisconcept:

Thereisonereligionandtherearemanysects.Themomentyougiveitaname,individualiseitandseparateitfromtherest,itisasect,nomoreareligion.Asect(proclaims)itsowntruthanddeclaresthatthereisnotruthanywhereelse.Religionbelievesthattherehasbeen,andstillis,onereligionintheworld.Thereneverweretworeligions.Itisthesamereligion(presenting)differentaspectsindifferentplaces(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.438).

Acoupleofpointsneedtobehighlightedhere.First,isthefactthatsinceVivekananda

hadattendedEnglishlanguageschoolsanduniversities,hehadbeenintroducedto

Europeanphilosophyandtheoriesofscientificreasoning.Assuch,hewasquitefamiliar

withthedifferentinterpretationsthatWesternscholarshadputforthregarding

‘religion’:

AtthebeginningofthenineteenthcenturymantriedtofindGodthroughreason,andDeismwastheresult.WhatlittlewasleftofGodbythisprocesswasdestroyedbyDarwinismandMillism.Menwerethenthrownbackuponhistoricalandcomparativereligion.Theythoughtreligionwasderivedfrom

149

elementworship(seeMaxMulleronsunmythsetc.);othersthoughtthatreligionwasderivedfromancestorworship(seeHerbertSpencer).Buttakenasawhole,thesemethodshaveprovedafailure.MancannotgetatTruthbyexternalmethods(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.41).

Now,whereasitistheeditorsofTheCompleteWorkswhohaveinsertedthenamesMax

MullerandHerbertSpencerinparentheseshere,itismorethanlikelybecause

VivekanandamentionedboththeseWesternscholarsfrequently.Infact,Vivekananda

wasquitefamiliarwithSpencer’swork:

ThereisalsothestoryofNarendranath’swritingalettertoHerbertSpencer,forthelatter’spermissiontotranslatehisbookon‘Education’inBengali,and‘thesavant,onreadingtheletter,wasmuchimpressedbythewriter’sintellectualacumen.MahendranathDattasaysthathiselderbrothertranslatedthisbookinhisearlystudentdays.ItwasnamedShikshaandwaspublishedbytheBasumatiprintingpressownedbyUpendraNathMukherjee(Chattopadhyaya,1999,p.31).

However,forVivekananda,itwasnotenoughtodemonstratethathewas

knowledgeableabouttheseWesternconcepts.Instead,hemadeeveryefforttoargue

thatHinduphilosophershadalreadydiscoveredtheseideas.Consequently,

VivekanandawasnotonlywillingtoquoteSpencerbutindeed,tochallengehim:

WhatisSpencer’sunknowable?ItisourMaya.Westernphilosophersareafraidoftheunknowable,butourphilosophershavetakenabigjumpintotheunknown,andtheyhaveconquered(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.104).

AsforMuller,Vivekanandahadapersonalrelationshipwithhimandevenhelped

Mulleracquiretheresourcesheneededtowritehisbook,Ramakrishna:HisLifeand

Sayings(1898).Vivekananda,likeotherIndianelitesinhisday,wasfamiliarwith

WesternandOrientalistscholarshipanddemonstratedthisawarenesswheneveritwas

tohisadvantage.DermotKillingleyremindsus:

Sincetheattitudes,valuesandassumptionsofthis[English-speaking]worldhadtoagreaterorlesserextentbeenacceptedbyEnglish-speakingIndians,togetherwithmuchoftheknowledgethatmarkedaculturedinhabitantofit,theWestwasnotalientothem(1999,p.140).

150

Asaresultofthis‘continentalcollision’,wearealsoabletolegitimatelypresumethat

Vivekanandawasfamiliarwithconceptssuchas‘naturalreligion’thatweremade

popularbyEuropeanhistoricalfigureslikeJeanBodin(1530-1596)andLordHerbertof

Cherbury(1583-1645).TheseWesternscholarsexploredthetheoryof‘religion’andits

relationshiptoreason,andmanyoftheirideasarereflectedintermssuchas‘natural

religion’and‘deism’.Forexample,RobertYellestates:

Edward,LordHerbertofCherbury(1583-1645),whoadvancedaconceptofnaturalreligionandtheoriginsofidolatrythatanticipatedtheDeists,heldsimilarviews,asthetitlesoftwoofthechaptersinhisworkOnPaganReligion(Dereligionegentilium)illustrate:“WhythereweresomanyNamesgiventoGod,andwhattheywere”and“TheWorshipoftheSunandhisSeveralNames.”Herbertcautionedthat“wisepeopledidnotthinkthattheSunitself…wastheSupremeGod”(2013,p.56).

Similarly,Masuzawaremindsus:

EarlierDeists–suchasHerbertofCherbury(1663)andJohnToland(1696)–typicallypresupposedthattherewastheoriginal,universal,rationalandethicalreligioncommontoallhumankind,andthat,withapassageoftime,thisoriginalpuretheismbecamevariously“corrupted,”withtheresultthatdifferentpeoplesindifferentregionsoftheworldcametopracticedivergentandidiosyncraticreligions.(2000,p.212).

Assuch,Vivekanandawasnotpresentingnewideastohisaudience,butrather,hewas

usinghisfamiliaritywithWesternintellectualhistoryinanefforttoconvincehis

audienceoftheveracityofhisclaims.Thisshouldnothowever,diminishthe

effectivenessofVivekananda’smethodsbecause,whereashemayhaveknownthathis

audiencewasawareofsomeofthehistoryoftheseterms,therecouldhavebeenno

certaintyoftheirwidespreadacceptance.Balagangadharapointsout:

Itisequallyessentialforustonotethattheethnographicdataaboutothercultureswasneithercompletenorexhaustiveduringthisperiod.Aswehavealreadyseen,theywerenotevenfreeofambiguityorinconsistencies.DuringtheperiodofBodinorHumeorevenFreud,anthropologicalinvestigationhadnotcomeupwithindisputableevidenceshowingthatreligionwasaculturaluniversal(2005,p.148).

151

Thus,whereasitistruethatVivekanandawasnotpullingthesetheoriesoutof

thinair,itisalsotruethathedemonstratedanacumenforappropriatingthese

discourses,thatwererelevantinWesternsociety,andallyingthemwithhisown

conceptof‘religion’.Aswesawinthesecondchapter,astrongargumentcanbemade

thattheterm‘religion’,hasChristianundertones.However,Vivekanandatookevery

libertytodefinethisconceptinawaythatappealedtohisneeds,andindoingsohe,like

manyofhispredecessors,triedtodivorceitfromitsChristianroots.Forexample,in

Chapter1wewitnessedhowBankimchandradiscardedthelabel‘religion’andreplaced

itwiththeHinduconcept‘dharma’which,aswehavealreadydiscussed,isacomplex

termthatisnotuniversallyapplicableevenwhendescribingHindutraditionallife.

Similarly,Vivekanandaalsoattemptedtodefinethelabel‘religion’inwaysthatbetter

suitedhisneeds:

InWesternreligiontheideaisthatwithouttheNewTestamentandChristtherecouldbenoreligion.AsimilarbeliefexistsinJudaismwithregardtoMosesandtheProphets,becausethesereligionsaredependentuponmythologyonly.Realreligion,thehighest,risesabovemythology;itcanneverrestuponthat.Modernsciencehasreallymadethefoundationsofreligionstrong.Thatthewholeuniverseisone,isscientificallydemonstrable.Whatthemetaphysicianscall“being”,thephysicistcalls“matter”,butthereisnorealfightbetweenthetwo,forbothareone.Thoughanatomisinvisible,unthinkable,yetinitarethewholepowerandpotencyoftheuniverse.ThatisexactlywhattheVedantistsaysofAtman.Allsectsarereallysayingthesamethingindifferentwords(Vivekananda,2009,vol.7,pp.49-50).

Ofcourse‘monism’,whichiswhatVivekanandawasreferringtohere,wasnotan

unfamiliarconceptintheWesternworldandwewilladdressthoseargumentslaterin

thischapter.

Thatbeingsaid,itisinterestingtonotethatwhereasVivekanandareadily

offereduphisqualificationsfor‘religion’,hewasnotabletodefine‘God’justaseasily.

Instead,herepeatedlysuggestedthathepreferredtouseSanskritterms,suchas

Brahman,sincethisresonatedwithhisownconceptof‘God’:

152

WhatdoImeanbytheuseoftheEnglishwordGod?CertainlynotthewordasordinarilyusedinEnglish–agooddealofdifference.ThereisnoothersuitablewordinEnglish.IwouldratherconfinemyselftotheSanskritwordBrahman.Heisthegeneralcauseofallthesemanifestations.WhatisthisBrahman?Heiseternal,eternallypure,eternallyawake,thealmighty,theall-knowing,theall-merciful,theomnipresent,theformless,thepartless.Hecreatesthisuniverse(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.123).

Similarly:

Takeforinstance,theEnglishwordGod.Itcoversonlyalimitedfunction,andifyougobeyondit,youhavetoaddadjectives,tomakeitPersonalorImpersonal,orAbsoluteGod.SowiththewordsforGodineveryotherlanguage;theirsignificationisverysmall(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.219).

ThedilemmathatVivekanandawasfacinghereisnotanewproblembutratheranissue

thathasbeenapointofdiscussionsinceantiquity.AccordingtoMcEvilley,thisneed,to

findawaytodefinethe‘undefinable’,isactuallyoneoftheoldestphilosophicalenigmas

thatbothhemisphereshavestruggledwith:

ManypassagesintheearlyUpanisadsdescribebrahman,orBeing,intermsvirtuallyidenticaltothosewithwhichAnaximander[circa540BCE]describedtheInfinite.“thatfromwhichthesethingsareborn,thatbywhich,whenborn,theylive,thatintowhich,whendeparting,theyenter.That,seektoknow.ThatisBrahman”.AsAnaximander’sInfiniteisdeclaredbyhimtobeneitheroneelementnoranother,thebrahmanisdeclaredtobe“neithergrossnorfine,neithershortnorlong,neitherglowingredlikefirenoradhesivelikewater”.AsAnaximander’sInfiniteissaidbyAristotleto“surroundallthingsandsteerthem,”sothebrahmanissaidintheearlyUpanisadstocontainallthingsandtobetheir“innercontroller”.AsAnaximander’sInfiniteissaidbyAristotletobedivineandimmortal,sothebrahman“transcendshungerandthirst,sorrowanddelusion,oldageanddeath”.Asthegroundofbeing,bothoftheseconcepts,apeironandbrahman,precedeallspecificqualitiesexceptthatofexisting;thesourceofthepairsofopposites,eachisitselfbeyondthem.Thisconceptofastateofbeingwhichisbeyondqualities,orpriortothem,isthefirstpurelyphilosophicalidea.Itwasobtainedthroughaprogressivestrippingawayofconcreteimagery.Itisoneofthegreatandcharacteristicproductsofancientthought–bothGreekandIndian–andhasretainedforceasanexpressionofbothphilosophicalandmysticalinsightsintomoderntimes(2002,p.33).

InthecaseofVivekananda,despitethefactthathefoundtheword‘God’bothlimiting,

andinadequate,heneverthelesscontinuedtousethislabelsincehecouldnotreplaceit

withBrahmanwhilehewasintheWest.Heprobablyrealizedthateventhoughithadits

153

shortcomings,itwasawordthathadmeaningforWesternersinthe19thcentury,and

indeedformanyIndiansaswell,andassuchhadtobeendured.

TwootherconceptsthatarecrucialtoourunderstandingofVivekananda,and

theroleheplayedin‘repackaging’Hinduideasduringthecolonialera,arethelabels

‘Hindu’and‘Hinduism’.Aswehavealreadydiscussed,thesetermsareambiguouseven

todayandarecontinuouslybeingdefined,redefinedandchallenged.Vivekanandagave

definitiveanswersforwhathebelievedthesewordsmeantinsuchawayasto

seeminglyleavenoroomfordiscussion.However,despitethisapparentconfidence,

uponcloserinspectionitbecomesevidentthatVivekanandahadtroublewiththese

terms.Indeed,onegetstheimpressionthatheparticularlystruggledwithdefiningthe

term‘Hindu’:

Thereisawordwhichhasbecomeverycommonasanappellationofourraceandreligion.Theword“Hindu”requiresalittleexplanation…Thisword“Hindu”wasthenamethattheancientPersiansusedtoapplytotheriverSindhu.WheneverinSanskritthereisan“s”,inancientPersianitchangesinto“h”,sothat“Sindhu”became“Hindu”…Nowthisword“Hindu”asappliedtotheinhabitantsoftheothersideoftheInduswhatevermighthavebeenitsmeaninginancienttimes,haslostallitsforceinmoderntimes;forallthepeoplethatliveonthissideoftheIndusnolongerbelongtoonereligion.TherearetheHindusproper,theMohammedans,theParsees,theChristians,theBuddhistsandJains.Theword“Hindu”initsliteralsenseoughttoincludeallthese;butassignifyingthereligionitwouldnotbepropertocallalltheseHindus.Itisveryhard,therefore,tofindanycommonnameforourreligion,seeingthatthisreligionisacollection,sotospeak,ofvariousreligions,ofvariousideas,ofvariousceremonialsandforms,allgatheredtogetheralmostwithoutaname,andwithoutachurchandwithoutanorganization(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.228).

Asaresultoftheseinherentdifficulties,Vivekanandacametowhat,atleastinitially,

seemstohavebeenatentativeworkingconclusion:

Theonlypointwhere,perhaps,alloursectsagreeisthatweallbelieveinthescriptures–theVedas.ThisperhapsiscertainthatnomancanhavearighttobecalledaHinduwhodoesnotadmitthesupremeauthorityoftheVedas(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.228).

154

Interestingly,thisisthesameconclusionthatthescholarHalbfasswouldcometo,over

acenturylater:

regardlessofthehighlyelusiveandambiguousnatureofthehistoricalrelationshipbetweentheVedaandHinduism,theHindutraditionhas,formanycenturies,defineditselfinrelationtotheVeda.TheVeda,ortheideaoftheVeda,hasprovidedoneindispensablefocusforHinduself-understanding(2005,p.21).Now,eventhoughVivekanandafinallysurmisedthatonlythosewhoaccepted

theVedaswereHindus,heconsistentlyappropriatedBuddhistandJainideasandcalled

themHindu.InaspeechpresentedattheParliamentonthe26thofSeptember1893

titled“Buddhism,theFulfillmentofHinduism”hestated:

TherelationbetweenHinduism(byHinduism,ImeanthereligionoftheVedas)andwhatiscalledBuddhismatthepresentdayisnearlythesameasbetweenJudaismandChristianity.JesusChristwasaJew,andShakyaMuniwasaHindu.TheJewsrejectedJesusChrist,nay,crucifiedhim,andtheHindushaveacceptedShakyaMuniasGodandworshiphim.ButtherealdifferencethatweHinduswanttoshowbetweenmodernBuddhismandwhatweshouldunderstandastheteachingsofLordBuddha,liesprincipallyinthis:ShakyaMunicametopreachnothingnew.Healso,likeJesus,cametofulfilandnottodestroy.Only,inthecaseofJesus,itwastheoldpeople,theJews,whodidnotunderstandhim,whileinthecaseofBuddha,itwashisownfollowerswhodidnotrealizetheimportofhisteachings.AstheJewdidnotunderstandthefulfillmentoftheOldTestament,sotheBuddhistdidnotunderstandthefulfillmentofthetruthsoftheHindureligion.Again,Irepeat,ShakyaMunicamenottodestroy,buthewasthefulfilment,thelogicalconclusion,thelogicaldevelopmentofthereligionoftheHindus(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.21).

Iamnotevengoingtotryandaddressthemultiplecontroversiesthatthesestatements

couldraise,withbothChristiansandJewsalike,sincethatisbeyondthescopeofmy

research.Instead,Iwouldliketodrawattentiontothefactthatnotonlydid

VivekanandathinkthatBuddhismwasthe‘fulfillmentofHinduism’butthathebelieved

thattheBuddhistshadnotunderstoodtheBuddhathemselves.Whatisworthnothing

herehowever,isthatonealsogetsthedistinctimpressionthatthiswashiswayof

concedingthat‘Hinduism’neededthereformthattheBuddhaprovided.Whereasthis

offersnoconsolationtoaBuddhist,asfarasVivekanandawasconcerned,heprobably

155

believedhewaspayingtheBuddhistsacomplimentwhenhesuggestedthatBuddhism

wasthefulfilmentof‘Hinduism.’Afterall,forVivekananda,‘Hinduism’wasthebest

‘religion’knowntomanandbeingthefulfilmentofsucha‘religion’couldonlybeseen

asanexpressionofapproval!Indeed,onegetsaclearsenseofVivekananda’sfrustration

withthefactthattheBuddhistsdidnotwanttobereferredtoasHindusandthatthey

didnotaccepttheVedasastheirultimateauthority.

Ofcourse,thisappropriationoftheBuddhawasnotnoveltoVivekananda.

HistorianshavearguedthatoneofthereasonsBuddhisttraditionsbegantofadeaway

fromtheIndianlandscapewasbecauseHinduphilosophersincorporatedmany

Buddhistconceptsintotheirownideologicalsystem.Nowhereisthismoreevidentthan

withthesmritiscripturesingeneralandtheVishnuPuranasinparticular,textsthat

gainedprominenceduringthePuranicperiod.Forexample,inTheHindus(2009),

WendyDonigerobserves:

ThemythofVishnu’sincarnationastheBuddhaisestablishedinfulldetailintheVishnuPurana,representedonthesixth-to-seventh-centuryDashavataratempleatDeogarhandmentionedinaseventh-centuryPallavainscriptionandaneighth-centuryTamilinscription(2009,p.482).

Furthermore,sheelaborates:

TheBhagavataPuranasaysthatVishnubecametheBuddhainordertoprotectusfromlackofenlightenmentandfromfatalblunders.TheVarahaPuranaadvisestheworshipertoworshipKalkiwhenhewantstodestroyenemiesandtheBuddhawhenhewantsbeauty.TheMatsyaPuranadescribestheBuddhaaslotus-eyed,beautifulasagod,andpeaceful.Kshemendra’seleventh-century“DeedsoftheTenAvatars”andJayadeva’stenth-centuryGitaGovindatellthestoryoftheBuddhaavatarinastraight,heroictalebasedonthestandardepisodesofGautama’slifeasrelatedinthePalicanon,andJayadevasaysthatVishnubecametheBuddhaoutofcompassionforanimals,toendbloodysacrifices.TheDashavatara-stotra,attributed(mostapocryphally)toShankara(whowasoftenaccusedofbeingacrypto-Buddhist),praisestheBuddhaavatar.TheDevibhagavataPuranaoffershomagetoVishnu,“whobecameincarnateastheBuddhainordertostoptheslaughterofanimalsandtodestroythesacrificesofthewicked,”addingamoraljudgementtoJayadeva’smoreneutralstatement;althoughthelastphrasemightbetranslated“todestroywickedsacrifices”ortakentoimplythatallsacrificesarewicked,itisalsopossiblethatonlywicked

156

(ordemonic,orproto-Buddhist)sacrificers,notvirtuousHindusacrificers,arecondemned.ThesetextsmayexpressaHindudesiretoabsorbBuddhisminapeacefulmanner,bothtowinBuddhiststotheworshipofVishnuandtoaccountforthefactthatsuchasignificantheresycouldprosperinIndia(Doniger,2009,p.484).

WhattheseexamplesfromPuranictextsdemonstrateisthatVivekanandawasjust

anotherIndianvoicewhowasechoingthewidespreadHindudoxathattheBuddhawas

anincarnationofVishnu.Whilethiswasalreadydeeplyproblematicwhenitwas

containedtotheIndiansubcontinent,itbecameexponentiallyworsewhenitwas

broadcastonaworldstage.58

AnotherIndiancommunitythatVivekanandatookissuewithweretheJains,

whichhealsoaddressedbytryingtoincludethemunder,whatheperceivedtobe,the

‘Hinduism’umbrella:

ThosethatbelieveintheHinduscriptures,theVedas,aseternalrevelationsoftruth,arecalledorthodoxandthosethatstandonotherauthorities,rejectingtheVedas,aretheheterodoxinIndia.ThechiefmodernunorthodoxHindusectsaretheJainsandtheBuddhists(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.238).

ThisisreminiscentofarecentargumentmadebyHalbfassthatshouldgivereadersa

glimpseintothefactthatissuessuchasthesecontinuetoberelevant,thereby

highlightingthecomplexrelationshipbetweenIndianphilosophictraditionsandthe

Vedas:

Themodernideaof“Hinduism,”orofthe“Hindureligion,”isareinterpretationofthetraditionalideasand,inasense,ahybridizationofthetraditionalself-understanding.Yetitisbynomeansamereadaptationofwesternsuperimpositions.Itisalsoacontinuationofthetradition,anexpressionandtransformationofthatself-understandingwhicharticulatesitselfinitscommitmenttotheVedicrevelation.ItisthiscommitmentthatprovidesthefocusfortraditionalHinduself-understanding,andthatprovidesaparadigmandexemplaryprecedentevenforthosemovementsthatpaylittleattentiontotheVedicrevelation,ortrytosupersedeitandreplaceit(Halbfass,2005,p.28).

58WewillreturntoVivekananda’sengagementwiththeBuddhisttraditionsinthefollowingchaptersasweexplorethehierarchythatVivekanandatriedtoestablishbetweenIndiantraditions.

157

AswediscussedinChapter3,thedifficultlywithidentifyingwhoshouldbe

calledHinduisnotonethatiseasilyresolvedevenincontemporarytimes.Asfaras

Vivekanandaisconcerned,itobviouslybecamecleartohim,attheParliament,thatthe

BuddhistsandtheJainsconsideredthemselvestobedistinctfromtheHindus.Idonot

meantosuggestthatVivekanandawasignorantofthesedifferenceswhenhelivedin

India.Instead,IwouldarguethatseeingrepresentativesfromtheBuddhistandJain

communities,beingacknowledgedasseparatefromtheHindurepresentativesatthe

Parliament,musthavemadeanimpressiononVivekananda.Afterall,inIndiathese

traditionswereusuallygroupedtogetherbytheirWesterncolonizers.However,atthe

Parliament,theywereexpectedtodefenddistincttraditionsandidentifywhatsetthem

apart.ThismayhavecomeasasurprisetoVivekanandasincehehadnotapplied

formallytoattendtheParliament,andtherefore,wasprobablynotawareofthevarious

speakersthathadbeenacceptedasrepresentativesofIndia.Idonotknowifonecan

qualifythisasnaïvetéonVivekananda’spartbut,itseemsapparentthatVivekananda

wasnotwillingtoacceptthesedivisions,becauseherepeatedlytriedtofindwaysto

includetheBuddhists,andtheJains,withintheHindufold.Indeed,hefirmlybelieved

thattheysharedthesameVedicphilosophicancestry:

uponsevereanalysisyouwillalwaysfindthattheessenceofBuddhismwasallborrowedfromthesameUpanishads:eventheethics,theso-calledgreatandwonderfulethicsofBuddhism,weretherewordforword,insomeoneorotheroftheUpanishads,andsoallthegooddoctrinesoftheJainswerethere,minusallthevagaries(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.230).Vivekanandaevidentlyfoundtheword‘Hindu’unreliable,butneverthelesslike

Lorenzen,acceptedthatitsimplementationhadfirstbecomepopularduringtheMughal

Empire(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.118).ItisalsosignificantthatwhileVivekananda

acknowledgedacomplexrelationshipwiththeJainsandtheBuddhists,hedidnotfindit

necessarytoincludeSikhism,whichwasanother‘religion’thatclaimedIndiaasits

158

birthplace.Indeed,whereashedidmentiontheSikhs,andparticularlyGuruNanak,

numeroustimesinhiswriting,heneverengagedwiththeminachallengingway.

Instead,hesimplysweptthemintohisversionofthehistoryofHindutraditionsalong

withSankara,KabirandChaitanya(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,pp.165,394).Perhaps,

thisisbecauselikeRamakrishna,Vivekanandaalsobelievedthat“theSikhGuruswere

butreincarnationsofancientRishis”(Sen,1993,p.298).Or,perhapsmoreaccurately,it

wasbecausetheSikhswerenotconsideredtobeoneoftheWesterndecreed‘great

traditions’andasaresulttheydidnothavearepresentativeattheParliamentsinceit

was“[o]rganizedaroundtheideaoften“greattraditions”–Confucianism,Taoism,

Shinto,Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism,Zoroastrianism,Judaism,Christianity,andIslam”

(Seager,2009,p.xiv).Consequently,Vivekanandadidnotfeelaninherentneedtojustify

whytheSikhsshouldbeincludedundertheHindubanner,ashedidwiththeBuddhists

andtheJains,whowerewellrepresentedattheParliament.

Sowhatabouttheterm‘Hinduism’?Wasthisjustasproblematicfor

Vivekananda?Actually,onegetsthedistinctimpressionthatdefining‘Hinduism’was

notaschallengingasdefining‘Hindu’.PerhapsthisisbecauseforVivekananda

‘Hinduism’wasjustanotherwayofsaying‘Vedantism’(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.61,

229).Indeed,herepeatedlydefined‘Hinduism’asthe‘religion’oftheVedas:

YoumustrememberthatwhattheBibleistotheChristians,whattheKoranistotheMohammedans,whattheTripitakaistotheBuddhist,whattheZendAvestaistotheParsees,theseUpanishadsaretous.Theseandnothingbuttheseareourscriptures.ThePuranas,theTantras,andalltheotherbooks,eventheVyasa-

Sutras,areofsecondary,tertiaryauthority,butprimaryaretheVedas(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.332).

VivekanandaplacedspecialemphasisontheUpanishadssincehebelievedthatthe

Upanishads(alsoknownasthe‘endoftheVeda’,orVedanta)werethemostcrucial

159

teachingsintheVedas.Hearguedthattheterm‘Vedanta’wasthemostappropriate

labelforthe‘religion’oftheHindus:

TheJnanaKanda,asembodyingthespiritualteachingsoftheVedasknownastheUpanishadsandtheVedanta,hasalwaysbeencitedasthehighestauthoritybyallourteachers,philosophers,andwriters,whetherdualist,orqualifiedmonist,ormonist.Whateverbehisphilosophyorsect,everyoneinIndiahastofindhisauthorityintheUpanishads.Ifhecannot,hissectwouldbeheterodox.Therefore,perhapstheonenameinmoderntimeswhichwoulddesignateeveryHinduthroughoutthelandwouldbe“Vedantist”or“Vaidika”,asyoumayputit;andinthatsenseIalwaysusetheword“Vedantism”and“Vedanta”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.229).

ThisleapthatVivekanandamadefromHindustoVedantinswasproblematic,especially

sincetheVedantadarsana(schoolofphilosophy)representsonlyoneofthesix

darsanasthatarecommonlyassociatedwithHindutraditions.Whatfurthercomplicates

matters,however,isthatnotonlydidVivekanandaassociateallHinduideaswith

VedantabuthealsoseemedtobeconflatingVedanticandAdvaiticideasthereby

makingitdifficulttoseethedifferencebetweenthem.GwylimBeckerleggepointsout:

VedantarepresentedforVivekanandathehighestinsightofHinduismandtheclearestanticipationtodateoftheuniversalreligion.Innineteenth-centuryBengal,VedantawaswidelyheldtobesynonymouswithAdvaita,and,by1896,Vivekanandahadcometoidentify“Vedantist”with“Hindu”.Theelasticityintheusageof“Vedanta,”“Advaita,”and“Hindu”servedVivekananda’spurposewhenheturnedtoanon-dualistformofVedantaasthe“highestgeneralization”ofreligiousmetaphysicsandethics.WhenspeakingofAdvaita/Vedantainthisvein,Vivekanandawaspreparedtoreducethecomplexitiesofthislong-establishedHinduphilosophicaltraditiontoaverygeneralizedlevelofmeaning(2004,pp.309-310).Whatisimportanttorememberhere,however,isthatitisclearfromhisvarious

lecturesanddiscourses,thatVivekanandawasquiteawareofthedistinctionsbetween

VedantaandAdvaita.Infact,heoftentimespointedoutthevariationsandmade

clarifications:

IngeneraltherearethreesortsofcommentatorsinIndianow:fromtheirinterpretationshavearisenthreesystemsofphilosophyandsects.Oneisthedualistic,orDvaita;asecondisthequalifiednon-dualistic,orVishishtadvaita;

160

andathirdisthenon-dualistic,orAdvaita(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.358-359).

Moreover,Vivekanandaarticulatedthedifferencebetweenthesethreeschoolsof

Vedanta:

Dvaitism–smallcircledifferentfromthebigcircle,onlyconnectedbyBhakti;Vishishtadvaitism–smallcirclewithinthebigcircle,motionregulatedbythebigcircle;Advaitism–smallcircleexpandsandcoincideswiththebigcircle.InAdvaitism,“I”losesitselfinGod.Godishere,Godisthere,Godis“I”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.122).

And,heacknowledgedthatAdvaitawasnottheonlyschoolthatusedtheVedasasits

basis:

WeallknowthatAdvaitismisonlyonebranchofthevariousphilosophicsystemsthathavebeenfoundedontheUpanishads.ThefollowersoftheVishistadvaiticsystemhaveasmuchreverencefortheUpanishadsasthefollowersoftheAdvaita,andtheVishishtadvaitistsclaimasmuchauthorityfortheVedantaastheAdvaitist.Sodothedualists;sodoeseveryothersectinIndia(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.229).

Vivekanandaseemedtorecognizethatthesedistinctionswerenotalwaysobviousto

mostpeople.Asaresult,heconcededthatthesetermswereoftenconflatedand

misquoted,“Iwanttomakeitalittleclearer,foroflateithasbecomethecustomof

mostpeopletoidentifythewordVedantawiththeAdvaiticsystemofVedanta

philosophy”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.229).Ironically,hearguedthatpartofthe

reasonwhytherewasthisconfusionwasbecauseofWesternscholarship:

InwhatisbeingwrittenandtaughtintheWestaboutthereligiousthoughtofIndia,oneschoolofIndianthoughtisprincipallyrepresented,thatwhichiscalledAdvaitism,themonisticsideofIndianreligion:andsometimesitisthoughtthatalltheteachingsoftheVedaarecomprisedinthatonesystemofphilosophy.Thereare,however,variousphasesofIndianthought:andperhaps,thisnon-dualisticformisintheminorityascomparedwiththeotherphases(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.238).

Nevertheless,despiterecognizingthatAdvaiticphilosophywas‘intheminority’he

arguedrepeatedlythatitwasthisphilosophythatdistinguished‘Hinduism’fromother

‘religions’andwasthepinnacleofanyreligiousachievementintheworld.For

161

Vivekananda,Advaitawas“thefairestflowerofphilosophyandreligionthatany

countryinanyagehasproduced,wherehumanthoughtattainsitshighestexpression

andevengoesbeyondthemysterywhichseemstobeimpenetrable”(Vivekananda,

2009,vol.2,p.247).

Similarly,hearguedthatAdvaita:

isthesalvationoftheworld,becausethereinaloneistobefoundthereasonofthings.Dualismandotherismsareverygoodasmeansofworship,verysatisfyingtothemind,andmaybetheyhavehelpedthemindonward;butifmanwantstoberationalandreligiousatthesametime,Advaitaistheonesystemintheworldforhim(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.404).

Consequently,sinceinhisopinion,Advaitawasthehighestlevelthatany‘religion’could

reach,andsinceitwasabranchofVedanta,itwasappropriatetousethetermVedanta

asavalidandlegitimatealternatelabelfor‘Hinduism’.IdonotthinkthatVivekananda

wantedtointentionallyconflateAdvaitawithVedanta.Thatmuchseemstobeapparent

sinceheconsistentlytriedtohighlightthefactthatAdvaitaonlyrepresentsoneofthe

threebranchesthatareroutinelyincludedunderVedanta.Rather,onegetsthedistinct

impressionthatVivekanandaisstrugglingtofindaresolutiontothisdilemmahimself.A

characteristicofhisthatoftentimesresultsinscholarswhostudyhimtoargue,as

AmiyaSendoesinthepreviouschapter,thatVivekanandaoccasionallypresented

contraryviewpointsthatcanleadtoopposingconclusionsabouthim.59

Thatbeingsaid,atleastasfarasVivekanandawasconcerned,onethingwas

certain.Advaitawasthebest,themostimportant,andindeedtheepitomeofall

philosophy,inIndiaandelsewhere.Therefore,theproblemwasthateventhoughhe

distinguishedbetweenthethreepaths,hespokemostoften,andthemosthighlyof

Advaita.Now,sincehewasspeakingexponentiallymoreaboutAdvaitathananyother

59Thisisanissuethatwewillexploreinsomedetailinthefinalchapter.

162

aspectofVedanta,andsincehereadilyconflatedVedantawith‘Hinduism’,itisnot

surprisingthatAdvaitawasoftenunderstoodasasynonymforVedanta,andtherefore,

asanalternativelabelfor‘Hinduism’;bothbyhislistenersandhisfollowers.Andfinally,

sayingthatthesedefinitionsareproblematicwouldbeanunderstatement.However,I

willhavetoleavethatforfurtherdiscussionandanalysisinthefollowingchapters.For

now,wehavesomeworkingdefinitionswithwhichtocontinueexamining

Vivekananda’sspeeches.ThisshouldallowustounderstandwhySisterNiveditastated,

intheintroductiontoTheCompleteWorks:

OftheSwami’saddressbeforetheParliamentofReligions,itmaybesaidthatwhenhebegantospeakitwasof“thereligiousideasoftheHindus”,butwhenheended,Hinduismhadbeencreated(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.x).

“PaperonHinduism”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.6-20)

ThemainpaperthatVivekanandapresentedattheParliamentwassimplytitled

“PaperonHinduism.”Itwasinthisspeechthatheoutlinedhisversionof‘Hinduism’.A

versionthatcaptivatednotonlyhisAmericanaudiences,butwhichalsoinspireda

newfoundrespectfortheirowntraditions,amongsthisHindureadersinIndia.Sister

Nivedita’sclaimthatitwaswiththisaddressattheParliamentthattheterm‘Hinduism’

wasfinallydefined,seemstoringtrue.Vivekanandadidindeedtryhisverybestto

demonstratethatthe‘religionsoftheHindus’wereacomplexmyriadoftraditions,

philosophiesandpractices,which,despitetheirmanycontradictionsandcontrasting

theories,couldbepresentedasaunitedwhole.Vivekanandaputforthacomprehensive

definitionof‘Hinduism’asavast,intricateandelaboratesystem;adescriptionthatis

remarkablysimilartotheonesthatJ.Z.SmithandFerro-Luzziproposeinprevious

chapters.Thisthenallowedhimtoarguethatitcould,andindeeditshould,serveasa

163

perfectexampleofhowa‘universalreligion’shouldappear.60Whereas,theendresultof

hiseffortsdidnotculminateina‘universalreligion’,itdidgiveHindusinIndiaa

platformuponwhichtheycoulduniteandformacoalitionagainstBritishcolonialism.

Thus,eventhoughVivekanandarepeatedlyclaimedthathewasarenunciateand

thereforewasnotinterestedinpoliticalmanoeuvrings,nevertheless,hisspeeches

inspiredmanytofindcommongroundintheirbattleagainstforeignoppression:

NationalismthusdecidedtowritethehistoryoftheIndiannationinthetextsofneo-Hinduism.ThishistoryhoweverwasalsosupposedtobeexemplarytotheIndianpeople.Thereturntotheessentialpastinthewaythatneo-HinduideologueslikeVivekanandaimaginedwassupposedtoactasagreatcounselortopeopleintheirprojectofnationalistregeneration(Basu,2002,p.45).

Vivekanandabegan,whatwastobehislongestpresentationattheParliament,

byreturningtohisclaimofantiquityfor‘Hinduism’.Hequalifiedthisbysayingthat

thereweretwoothersthatsharedthismantleofantiquitywithHindutraditions,

ZoroastrianismandJudaism.However,forVivekanandathissimilarityendedthere

sincehewentontostate:

whileJudaismfailedtoabsorbChristianityandwasdrivenoutofitsplaceofbirthbyitsall-conqueringdaughter,andahandfulofParseesisallthatremainstotellthetaleoftheirgrandreligion,sectaftersectaroseinIndiaandseemedtoshakethereligionoftheVedastoitsveryfoundations,butlikethewatersoftheseashoreinatremendousearthquakeitrecededonlyforawhile,onlytoreturninanall-absorbingflood,athousandtimesmorevigorous,andwhenthetumultoftherushwasover,thesesectswereallsuckedin,absorbed,andassimilatedintotheimmensebodyofthemotherfaith(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.6).

Onceagain,weseehowVivekanandainvokestheimageofthe‘mother’anideathathe

believedwasespeciallypowerful.61Presenting‘Hinduism’asthe‘motherreligion’was

hiswayofgrantingitsupremacy,whileatthesametimedenyingWesterntraditional

ideastherighttoclaimthatHinduphilosophyremainedinitsinfancy.Noticealsohow,

60Wewillreturntothisideaofa‘universalreligion’inthefollowingchapters.61Inthefinalchapter,wewilldiscussingreaterdetail,Vivekananda’sengagementwiththe‘feminineprinciple’as‘mother’.

164

bystating“thosesectswereallsuckedin,absorbed,andassimilatedintotheimmense

bodyofthemotherfaith”Vivekanandasummarilyappropriatedalltheideasand

philosophiesthattookbirthonIndiansoil.ThisproblematicattitudeofVivekananda’s

wascompoundedbyhisnextstatement:

FromthespiritualflightsoftheVedantaphilosophy,ofwhichthelatestdiscoveriesofscienceseemlikeechoes,tothelowideasofidolatrywithitsmultifariousmythology,theagnosticismoftheBuddhists,andtheatheismoftheJains,eachandallhaveaplaceintheHindu’sreligion(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.6).Thissinglesentenceisteemingwithissuesthatwould,andshould,deeply

concerncontemporaryscholars.First,heclaimedahigherspiritualgroundforVedic

philosophy,whilearguingthatcontemporarytheoriesofscienceandreasonhad

alreadybeenexpoundedintheVedas.Next,heplacedidolworshipononeofthelowest

rungsoftheHinduhierarchy,therebycreatingsomedistanceforhimselffromthese

practicesthatwereusuallyviewedunfavourablybytheWesterners.Andfinally,he

appropriatedBuddhistandJaintheologyinonefellswoop,claimingauthorityover

theseIndiantraditions.Thatbeingsaidhowever,italsohastoberecognizedthatthere

areanumberofreasonswhyVivekananda’suseofsuchlanguagemusthaveappealedto

hisaudiences,bothattheParliamentandinIndia.AsfarastheWestwasconcerned,

thisapproachallowedthemtounderstand,inlanguagethatwasfamiliartothem,how

traditionsthatwereseeminglysocontradictorycouldexistinrelativeharmony.King

pointsout:

itwouldseemthatthekeytotheWest’sinitialpostulationoftheunityof‘Hinduism’derivesfromtheJudaeo-ChristiansuppositionsoftheOrientalistsandmissionaries.Convincedastheywerethatdistinctivereligionscouldnotcoexistwithoutfrequentantagonism,thedoctrinalliberalityofIndianreligionsremainedamysterywithoutthepostulationofanoverarchingreligiousframeworkthatcouldunitetheIndiansundertheflagofasinglereligioustradition.HowelsecantherelativelypeacefulcoexistenceofthevariousHindumovementsbeexplainedwithoutsomesenseofreligiousunity?Whyelsewould

165

Hindusofdifferingsectarianaffiliationsaccepttheexistenceofrivalgodsunlesstheybelongedtothesamereligioustradition(1999,p.105).

King’sargumentprovidesanexplanationastohowHinduelites,bothbeforeandduring

Vivekananda’stime,recognizedthisinherentneedthattheWesternershadtosee

‘Hinduism’asacoherentandunified‘religion.Inresponse,theseelitevoicestriedto

presentacomprehensiveversionoftheirtraditionalideas.Ontheonehand,thisgave

themanopportunitytobeacceptedontheworldstagesincetheyseemedtobeoffering

aviableresponsetothehegemonyofWesternreligioustraditions.Ontheotherhand,

thisalsogaveIndiansaplatformfromwhichtocreateanation.Kinggoesontoclarify:

ThisHinduattitudedoesnotmerelyreflectthecolonizationoftheirthought-processesbytheOrientalists.PostulationofHinduunitywastobeencouragedinthedevelopmentofIndianautonomyfromBritishrule.Swaraj(homerule)wasseentobeinconceivablewithouttheunificationofIndiaalongnationalisticandculturallines.Notonlythat,althoughsectarianclasheshavealwaysoccurred,ingeneralIndianreligiousgroupsappeartohavebeenabletolivetogetherinamannerunprecedentedinthehistoryoftheJudaeo-ChristianreligionsintheWest(1999,pp.106-107).

Itwasthistheory,thatIndianshadfoundsomewaytoco-existinrelativeharmony,that

Vivekanandarepeatedlyrevisitedandwhichformedacornerstoneofhisargument.

Thus,eventhoughheoftentimesfoundwaystoseparatehimselffromidolatry,henever

wentsofarastosaythatsuchidealsrequiredreform.Instead,hearguedthatthey

neededtobeunderstoodasanalternative,usuallylower,butneverthelessviable,

optionformanyHindus.

Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,thisideathattherearedifferentpaths

dependingonthekindofpersonyouare,orthebackgroundyoucomefrom,orthe

communityyoubelongto,isonethatwasusedregularlybyVivekananda’sguru

Ramakrishna.Ramakrishnaroutinelyadvocated,bothwithhiswordsandhisactions,

thatthereweremanywaystounderstandandengagewiththedivine.Forexample,Sen

notes:

166

thebroadeclecticismofRamakrishnawhoseemstohavecleverlygraftedaninnatedefenceofHinduismintohisfairlytolerantandflexiblespiritualframework.Thiswasachievedthroughthereemphasisonthetraditionalconceptofadhikari-bheda–worshipinkeepingwiththesocialandspiritualstatusoftheindividual(1993,p.34).62

SencontendsthatthisapproachofRamakrishna’s“tendedtomakeits[Hinduism]

idolatrousformsofworshipspirituallyconsistentwithVedanticmonotheism”(1993,p.

34).Accordingly,SenarguesthatmanyofVivekananda’sideas,regardingthe

relationshipbetweentheHinduphilosophythatreveresaGodwithattributes(Saguna

Brahman)versusthosethathonouraGodwithoutattributes(NirgunaBrahman)stems

fromRamakrishna’steachingswhich“legitimizedtheworshipofaSakar–SagunaIswar

(Godwithformandattributes)togetherwithabeliefintheNirakar–Nirguna”(1993,

p.291).

TheseideasofRamakrishna’s,ideasthatwereculledfromtraditionalHindu

philosophy,arewhatVivekanandanowpublicizedandchampioned.Oneofthemost

uniqueaspectsofVivekananda’smodusoperandiwashisabilitytonotonlydefend

Hinduphilosophy,idealsandpractices,but,topresenttheminawaywhichwasnot

hesitantordefensive,butrather,proudandforceful.Itwasthiscapacityofhis,to

highlighttheaccomplishmentsandvalidityoftheIndianwayoflife,whichmadehim

standapartfromearlierIndianelites.BasuarguesthatitwaswithVivekanandathat

boththeWest,andIndiansalike,sawthepotentialthatIndiahad.This,inturn,allowed

Indiansanopportunitytoregaintheirvoiceaftercenturiesofcolonialsubjugation:

Thisthemeofculturalcompetence,theabilityofcolonialsocietytobecomemodern,whichinthecaseofnineteenth-centurycolonialIndiaimpliedthatitcouldmakesimilarclaimsofuniversalismliketheEuropeanEnlightenment,iscrucialtoallThirdWorldnationalism.BeforeVivekananda,theBrahmos,inordertobemodernhaddiscardedHinduism.InoppositiontheHindurevivalistsdiscardedthemoderninordertoregaintheirautonomyasHindu.InVivekanandafinallythemodernisacclaimedasHindu(Basu,2002,p.38).

62Wewillreturntothisideaofadhikari-bedaintheconcludingchapter.

167

Unlikemanyofhispredecessors,whooftentimestookadefensivepositionwhen

engagingwiththeWest,Vivekanandawentontheoffensive.Hewasnotonlywontto

upholdthemanywondersofIndiabutwasequallycapableofhighlightingtheerrorsof

Westernways.Accordingly,Senstates:

Bythelate1880stheentireRenaissancetraditioninBengalwasrepletewithpungentcritiquesandcounter-offensivesvis-à-visWesterncivilizationandculture….ThattheWestwaslargely‘barbaric’atatimewhencivilizationwasatitspeakinAsiaisabeliefreflectedinthewritingsofmanyestablishedwritersinnineteenthcenturyBengal;noneofthemhowever,approachedthequestionwithasmuchcourageandfervourasVivekananda(1993,p.336).

VivekanandarepeatedlyattackedEuropeanideasandnowherewasthismoreevident

thaninhisstridentcritiqueofEuropeancivilizationinhisessay“TheEastandthe

West”:

AndmayIaskyouEuropeanswhatcountryhaveyoueverraisedtobetterconditions?Whereveryouhavefoundweakerraces,youhaveexterminatedthembytheroots,asitwere.Youhavesettledontheirlands,andtheyaregoneforever[sic].WhatisthehistoryofyourAmericas,yourAustralia,andNewZealand,yourPacificIslandsandSouthAfrica?Wherearethoseaboriginalracestheretoday?Theyareallexterminated,youhavekilledthemoutright,asiftheywerewildbeasts.Itisonlywhereyouhavenotthepowertodoso,andthereonly,thatothernationsarestillalive(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,pp.536-537).

RaychaudhariarguesthatinthecaseofVivekananda,hispropensitytohighlightthe

deeplyproblematicnatureofcolonizationwhileatthesametimeelevateIndia’s

accomplishmentsdidnotstemfromasenseof‘inadequacy’:

Theyouthfulmonk’sencounterswiththeWestareovershadowedbyhisdeepconviction,basedonhislife-experience,thatinhischosenfieldofendeavour,hehadnothingtolearnfromthedominantcultureoftheday.Instead,heofferedtoteachtheWestandadvisedhisfellowcountrymentolearnfromthoseareasofwesternlifewherecontemporaryIndiawasobviouslydeficient.HisperceptionsofEuropeandAmericaweredeeplycolouredbyhisfaithinwhathasbeenreducedtoaclumsycliché–India’sspiritualsuperiority.Culturalself-assertionwasverymuchapartofhismissionbothabroadandathome.ButhisbeliefintheultimateexcellenceoftheHinduspiritualinheritance–theVedanticconceptsaswellasthewayofYogainparticular–wasnotinformedbyanyneedtocompensateforthesenseofinadequacy,thecharacteristicpredicamentofEurope’sAfro-Asiansubjects(1988,p.220).

168

ItwasthistraitofVivekananda’sthatgavehimasenseofauthority,whichthenallowed

himtodeclarethatIndiawasmorethancompetenttostand,shouldertoshoulder,with

Westernphilosophicideals.

ThewaythatVivekanandasucceededinaccomplishingthisgoalwasbyusing

monisticAdvaiticideals.HecreatedahierarchyamongstHindutraditionswherebythe

philosophicalideasoftheVedas,butespeciallytheUpanishads,wereconsideredthe

apexofallwisdom,Hinduandotherwise.Vivekanandasetaboutpresentinga

worldviewthatallowedforallothertraditionalphilosophiesandpracticestocoexist,no

matteriftheywereofIndianoriginornot.Heallowedthemtheirvalidity,butonly

insofarastheyultimatelyagreedwiththeVedanta.Ofcourse,Vivekanandawasnot

alwaysblatantinhiseffortstosellhisworldview,butinsteadhereliedonbothovert

andcoverttechniquestosupporthiscause.InthisspeechattheParliamenthebaldly

declared,“TheHindushavereceivedtheirreligionthroughrevelation,theVedas”

(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.6),therebyestablishingthattheVedaswereconsideredto

be‘revealed’truths.HemusthaveknownthatthiswouldraisethevalueoftheVedasin

theeyesofhisJudeo-Christianaudience,which,inturn,wouldallowHindustoclaim

equallegitimacyfortheirscriptureswhenchallengedbytheirWesterncounterparts.

Vivekanandathengoesontodeclarethatcreationwas“withoutbeginningorend”

(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.7)since,toargueanythingelsewouldbe,accordingtohim,

equivalenttoarguingthatGoddidnotalwaysexist.Thisisaparticularlyinteresting,

andinsomeways,antagonistic,tacticadoptedbyVivekanandaconsideringthefactthat

‘creationism’wasoneofthefoundationsoftheWesternworldview.Instead,

Vivekanandachosetoalignhimselfwithideasofscienceandreason,therebysuggesting

thatHinduphilosophywasmoreamenabletothesemodernconceptsthanChristianity.

169

Hefurtheremphasizedthattheseers,towhomtheserevelationsweremade,also

includedwomen.ThisisespeciallyimportantsinceamajorityofhismostavidWestern

listenerswerefemaleandassuchrespondedwelltohearingthatfemaleseerswere

reveredinIndia.However,thiswasnotonlyameansforhimtoendearhimselftohis

audiencebutalsoawayinwhichhecoulddemonstratehowwellsuitedHinduideas

wereforaworldinwhichwomenwerebeginningtoquestionideasofgender

inequality.VivekanandarepeatedlyusedWestern,scientificlanguagetoexplainsuch

Hinduideasastime,anindestructiblesoul,andtheideaofreincarnation.Thelanguage

heusedtohighlightthestrengthsandgloryoftheHindupastwerecateredtoappealto

Western,scientificminds.Indeed,hislanguagewhichofferedupthecomplexideasof

WesternphilosopherslikeHegel,Darwin,Spenceretc.,inbroadstrokesandno-

nonsenseformulas,tookboththeWestandIndiabystorm.

Idolworshipjustified?

Beforeconcludingthischapter,afewwordsneedtobesaidaboutVivekananda’s

treatmentofidolworship.Particularlysincethiswasinstrumentalinhelpinghimto

establishahierarchyamongstIndiantraditions;aproblematictacticthatbecomes

evidentwhenhereturnstoIndia.Especiallyconsideringthatthishierarchycontinuesto

influencethewaymanyHindusinIndiatodayviewtheirtraditionalideas.Whatis

noteworthyisthatitwasonlyafterestablishingthattheHindutraditionsheascribedto

wereamenabletoscienceandreasonthatVivekanandatookupthematterofmultiple

deities.Itistruehedidmentionthis‘hotbutton’issueintheopeningsentencesofhis

speech,butitwasnotuntillater,whenhehadalreadydemonstratedthatIndianideas

werenotoutdated,thatherevisitedthispointinsomedetail;asmarttacticalmoveon

hispart.First,heestablishedtheloftyidealsofVedanta.Thereafter,heshowcasedhow

170

theseconceptswerecompatiblewithscienceandreason.Oncehehadhisaudiencein

thepalmofhishand,agreeingwiththewondrousaspectsofHinduphilosophy,only

thendidheapproachthetopicofidolatry.Nodoubt,thiswasbecauseheknewthatthis

wasatrickysubjectforWesternlistenersforwhomidolatry,orpolytheism,wasusually

seenasasignofabackwardsociety.PerhapsVivekanandasurmisedthattocompletely

ignoretheissuecouldbeseeneitherasasignofshame,ormuteacceptanceandassuch,

decidedtotacklethequestionheadon:

Attheveryoutset,ImaytellyouthatthereisnopolytheisminIndia.Ineverytemple,ifonestandsbyandlistens,onewillfindtheworshippersapplyingalltheattributesofGod,includingomnipresence,totheimages.Itisnotpolytheism,norwouldthenamehenotheismexplainthesituation.“Therosecalledbyanyothernamewouldsmellassweet.”Namesarenotexplanations(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,p.15,emphasisinoriginal).

ItwasimportantforVivekanandatodemonstratewhy,justbecausesomeoneprayedto

multipledeities,itdidnotmeanthattheydidnotcomprehendthattheseweretools

usedtounderstandBrahman.Heaccomplishedthisbystatingthatsomeoftheholiest

menhehadeverknownprayedtovariousformsofdeities,butwho,bytheiractions

anddeedswereenlightenedsouls.Clearly,Vivekanandawasspeakingofhisguru

Ramakrishnahere.VivekanandathenadeptlyturnedthefocusontotheChristianuseof

imagesandsymbolsandarguedthattheneedforsuchtools,inordertoengagewiththe

divine,wasuniversalandnotlimitedtoHindus:

Whyisthecrossholy?Whyisthefaceturnedtowardtheskyinprayer?WhyaretheresomanyimagesintheCatholicChurch?WhyaretheresomanyimagesinthemindsofProtestantswhentheypray?Mybrethren,wecannomorethinkaboutanythingwithoutamentalimagethanwecanlivewithoutbreathing.Bythelawofassociation,thematerialimagecallsupthementalideaandviceversa.ThisiswhytheHinduusesanexternalsymbolwhenheworships.Hewilltellyou,ithelpstokeephismindfixedontheBeingtowhomheprays.HeknowsaswellasyoudothattheimageisnotGod,isnotomnipresent(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.15-16).

171

Inthismanner,VivekanandabuilthisargumentthatstatedthatwhereasHindusdid

praytoidolsandsymbols,justliketheChristians,theydidthiswithanawarenessthat

thiswassimplyastageintheirjourneytowardsBrahman.Argumentssuchasthese

havetheirbasisinAdvaitaphilosophy,butVivekanandadidnotspecifythishere;

insteadhepresentedtheseargumentsasiftheywereaspectsofapan-Hindu

philosophy.Furthermore,inaveryinteresting,andatsomeleveldisturbingtactic,

VivekanandaturnedargumentsthathadbeenutilizedbytheWest,againstHindu

traditionsingeneral,ontoidolworshipinparticular.Inanobviousefforttoseparate

himself,yetshowsomelevelofunityamongstHindutraditionalpractices,headopted

the‘childhoodofhumanity’argumentwhendescribingHinduswhoworshippedidols:

Mark,thesameearnestmanwhoiskneelingbeforetheidoltellsyou,“Himthesuncannotexpress,northemoon,northestars,thelightningcannotexpressHim,norwhatwespeakofasfire;throughHimtheyshine.”Buthedoesnotabuseanyone’sidolorcallitsworshipsin.Herecognizesinitanecessarystageoflife.“Thechildisthefatheroftheman.”Woulditberightforanoldmantosaythatchildhoodisasinoryouthasin?Ifamancanrealizehisdivinenaturewiththehelpofanimage,woulditberighttocallthatasin?Norevenwhenhehaspassedthatstage,shouldhecallitanerror.TotheHindu,manisnottravellingfromerrortotruth,butfromtruthtotruth,fromlowertohighertruth(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,pp.16-17).

Asaresult,wenowhaveVivekanandausingimagesofchildhood,andreferencesto

differentstagesofspiritualgrowth,thathadpreviouslybeenusedagainstHindu

traditions.Imagesthathehotlycontested,butwhichhenowwillinglyappliedtoHindu

practitionerswhoadheredtobhaktiversusVedanticideals.And,itwasthisVedantic

worldviewthatheusedwhenhespokeofrelativeandabsolutetruths(notsurprisingly,

hedoesnotcreditBuddhismfortheseideas),inanefforttoestablishthepracticaluses

ofidolsandsymbolsinalayperson’slife.ThishierarchythatVivekanandaincorporated

isofparticularinterestandIwillreturntothisdiscussioninthenextchapterasitisone

ofthemostdisturbingcontributionsofhislegacy.

172

Conclusion

AsweturnourgazetoVivekananda’scelebratedreturntoIndiathereareafew

aspectsofhisspeechesattheParliamentthatareparticularlyimportanttonote,points

whichwewillreturntoagaininthefollowingchapter.First,Vivekanandawasvery

concernedaboutthewayHindutraditionswereunderstoodbyhisWesternaudience.

Assuch,hewasdeterminedto‘repackage’theirperceptionofIndia’sphilosophiclegacy.

However,unlikepreviousHinduelites,whohadengagedwithWesternaudiences,

Vivekanandawasunapologeticabouthistraditionalbeliefs.Consequently,ratherthan

embracingareformistattitude,heexhibitsasuperioritycomplexwhenspeakingof

Hinduphilosophicalideas.Secondly,hebelievedthatthebestwaytojustifyhisclaims

ofsuperioritywasbyusingVedantaashisvehicleofcommunication.Ofcourse,aswe

sawinthepreviouschapter,thiswasastrategythathadalreadybeenusedbyhis

predecessorslikeRammohanandBankimchandra.Infact,thisisapointthatwewill

revisitintheensuingchaptersasweinvestigatethewaysVivekanandafitsintothe

dialoguethatwastakingplaceontheIndiansubcontinent.Thatbeingsaid,in

Vivekananda’sopinion,Vedantawithitsloftynon-dualisticideals,highlightedaspectsof

HinduphilosophythatovershadowedChristianity’shighmoralisticcredo,sinceitwent

beyondmonotheismandchampionedmonisminstead.AsfarasVivekanandawas

concerned,monismcouldclaimthehighermoralgroundsinceitsbasisof‘nodifference’

placedeverybodyonanequalfooting.Itisimportanttorememberherethatwhereas

theterm‘monotheism’isoftentimesladenwithEurocentricsensibilities,thisdoesnot

meanthatthephilosophicalquestionswhichunderscoredsuchlabelswerelimitedto

theWesternhemisphere.Forexample,McEvilleydrawsattentiontothefactthat

questionsregarding‘monism’and‘pantheism’hadbeenextensivelydebatedbyancient

Egyptians,GreeksandIndians,andtheirconclusionswereremarkablycomparable:

173

Amonistictendencyofthought,gatheringmomentum,createsameltdowninapolytheisticmythology.TowardtheendoftheNewKingdomthistendencyreachedthebreakingpointinthetheologyofAmon-Re.Thepriestsofthisschool,atthegreattempleofKarnak,wereonthevergeoftheabstractconceptionofmonism.Theirsacreddiscoursehadgonebeyondnarrative,astheydeclaredAmon-Retobe“thesolitarysoleone,”“theoneonly,”the“onewhohasnosecond,”the“oneone”–allideasthatareessentiallyantinarrative.Amon-Rewaselevatedbeyonddiscursivereach,includingthereachofmythologicalnarrativeandimagery,throughaseriesofparadoxes–thefirstseriesofstudiedandcarefullyrefinedparadoxesonrecord(2002,pp.24-25).

Similarly,hehighlights:ThepantheoswashighlightedmanytimesinIndia,wherearchaicconceptswerenotdiscardedbutcontinuedtoexist,withtheforceoftraditionalvalidation,alongsidenewones.TheUpanisadicatman,orUniversalSubjectforexample,isdescribedasapantheosintermsthatmixtheimageryofthePurusasuktawithnewmoreabstractelements(McEvilley,2002,pp.26-27).

Interestinglyenoughhowever,McEvilley’sconclusionresonateswithVivekananda’s

declarationsthatIndiawastheplacewheresuchideaswerenurtured:

InIndiathewholetenorofliteraturechangedwhenthepolytheismwasdecayed,orwasabsorbed,intothemonisticframework.AllsubsequentIndianliteratureissaturatedwiththemonisticview.YetinGreece,literatureingeneralcontinuedthepolytheisticviewofHomerandHesiodasifthemonisticrevisionsofXenophanesandothershadneveroccurred.Themonisticattitudebecameasmallenduringphilosophicalcultasitwere,keptalivebyspecialshelteringfromsocietyasawhole.Itwouldseemthat,ifanydiffusionclaimsaretobemadeasaresultofthisthoroughanddetailedparallelism,itisdiffusionfromIndiaorelsewhereintoGreecethatismostlikelytobeitsform,nottheotherwayaround(McEvilley,2002,p.61).

WhatthisdemonstratesisthatVivekanandaisbuildingonphilosophicalargumentsthat

hadbeenevolvingforcenturies.Consequently,histheorieswerenotdevelopedina

vacuum(justasKapoorcontendsinthebeginningofthischapter).Rather,theywere

theresultofthe‘continentalcollision’thathadbeenoccurringsinceantiquity,which,in

turn,madehimjustoneofthemorerecentvoicestohavejoinedthefray.Bethatasit

may,itisnoteworthythatbyexpoundingonidolworship,hewaswillingto

demonstratethathewasnotafraidtonotonlydiscuss,butalsoexplain,howandwhy

prayingtoamyriadofdeitieswasnotsomethingtofearorscoffat.Asweturntothe

174

nextchapter,whereweexplorethedifferencesbetweenthespeechesthatVivekananda

madeattheParliament,versusthedeclarationshemadeinIndia,wewillbeableto

examinehowheadjustedhismessagewhenspeakingtoanIndianaudience.His

techniqueofferusauniquewindowthroughwhichtoobservethewayHindu

traditionalideasrespondedtothe‘continentalcollision’thatoccurredduringtheBritish

Raj.EspeciallysincethoseaftershocksarestillbeingfeltinIndiatodaywiththe

widespreadimpactoftheHindutvamovementandtheirmessageofsupremacy.

175

SwamiVivekananda:AHeroReturns

BeforeweexaminethespeechesmadebyVivekananda,whenhereturnedto

India,thereareafewpointswemustkeepinmind.First,whenVivekanandaleftIndia

hewassimplyoneofRamakrishna’srenunciatedisciples,andassuch,wasrelatively

unknown.Secondly,despitehisunheraldedarrivalintheUS,Vivekanandawasvery

wellreceivedattheParliament,asaresultofwhich,reportsofhissuccessfulspeeches

reachedIndianearsandwerepublishedinmultipleIndiannewspapers.And,finally,

VivekanandaacquiredseveralWesternfollowersduetothevariouslecturecircuitshe

participatedin,andthemultipleVedantacentresthathehelpedestablish,intheUnited

StatesandEngland.Thischangeinstatus,andlevelofrecognition,areimportantwhen

analysingthetoneofhisvoice,andtheauthoritywithwhichhespoke,whenhe

returnedtoIndia.TheyearsVivekanandahadspentoverseashadgivenhimabetter

understandingaboutmanyWesterntheories,strategiesandpractices.Indeed,because

ofhistimeintheWest,Vivekanandaexperiencedauniqueformof‘continentalcollision’

thatimpactedhowhepackagedhisideasaboutHinduconcepts.And,aswesawinthe

lastchapter,hewasquicktoadapthismessageanduselanguageandconceptsthat

weremorefamiliarfortheWesternworld

InIndia,however,hewasfacedwiththetaskofconvincinghiscompatriotsthat

hiswayof‘packaging’Hindutraditionswascrucialiftheywantedtoconvinceboththeir

colonizers,aswellastheworldatlarge,thatHinduphilosophywasnotonlyatparwith

othertraditionsbutinfactwassuperior.Ofparticularinteresttousarethestrategies

thatVivekanandausedtoaccomplishhismission;strategiesthatcontinuetobeused

todaybymanyHindus,bothinIndiaaswellasthediaspora.Vivekanandawasoneof

theearlyarchitectsofthisphenomenonwherebyHindusbeganembracingtheideaof

176

anall-encompassing,all-inclusive,almostmonolithic‘Hinduism’.AsIexplorehowthe

‘cyclonicmonk’63tookIndiabystormIwilljuxtaposehismethodswiththeconclusions

ofcertaincontemporaryscholars,whomaynotalwaysrecognizeVivekanandaasoneof

thegamechangersofthenineteenthcentury,but,whonevertheless,identifyhowHindu

traditionalconceptswererestructuredduringthecolonialeraandbeyond.Inthe

secondandthirdchaptersofthisstudyIofferedupatheoreticalanalysisonhowthe

terms‘religion’and‘Hinduism’developedoverthecenturiesandacrosscontinents.This

theoreticalanalysisgavemeaframeworkfromwhichtodetermine,intheprevious

chapter,howVivekanandaengagedwiththeseconceptsinanefforttopresentIndiaasa

unitedentity,withacomprehensiblephilosophicalsystem,capableofstandingshoulder

toshoulderwithWesternstates.Now,ashereturnstoIndia,weshallseethathe

continuedonthistrajectorytherebyestablishingthattheIndianelitewerenotpassive

responderstothis‘continentalcollision’.Instead,theyactivelyparticipatedinthe

restructuringoftheirsociety.Unfortunatelyhowever,someofthisrestructuring

resultedinaderivativediscoursethatthatcanstillprovetobeharmfultotheintegrity

ofIndiantraditions.

Perhapsafewpointsofclarificationmightbeusefulhere.Vivekanandawasnot

thefirstHindutotryandrepackageHinduideasinsuchawayastomakethemmore

palatabletobothWesternandIndianaudiences;thereweremanybeforehim.For

example,BankimchandraChattopadhyayrecreatedthepopularimageofKrishnatosuit,

whathebelievedtobemodernIndia’sneeds.64ManyHinduintellectuals,notonly

Vivekananda,optedtousereligiouslanguagetohelpunitetheircountrymen.What

63Vivekanandawasreferredtoasthe‘cyclonicmonk’byseveralnewspaperarticlesafterhespokeattheParliament.64BankimchandraChattopadhyaya,KrishnaCharitra(1888).

177

madeVivekanandauniquewasthefactthathehadlecturedhisaudiencesintheWest,

onthemeritsofHindutraditions,inaforcefulyetconciliatorymanner;thelikesof

whichwerenotseenagainuntilGandhienteredtheworld’spoliticalarena.Assuch,the

tacticsusedbyVivekanandatobuilduptheconfidenceandself-esteemofhis

countrymen,whilstatthesametimeredeemingtheperceivedimageofHindutraditions

areanimportantsteppingstonetounderstandinghowVivekananda’semphasison

AdvaitaVedantabecamesowidespread.

Nodoubt,theadditionalinsightthatVivekanandaobtained,intohowthe

Westernmindworked,duetohiscloseconnectionswithseveralWesternelites65,

helpedhimtoidentifyhowbesttopackageHinduideas.Vivekanandahimself

acknowledgedthathehadseenaneedfortheadaptationofHinduideasandtherefore

hadtakenthelibertytodoso.InaletterwrittenbyVivekanandatohisbrotherdisciple,

Alasinga,inFebruary1896,whilehewasstillonhisfirstAmericantour,hewrote:

toputtheHinduideasintoEnglishandthenmakeoutofdryphilosophyandqueerstartlingpsychology,areligionwhichshallbeeasy,simple,popular,andatthesametimemeettherequirementsofthehighestminds–isataskonlythosecanunderstandwhohaveattemptedit.ThedryabstractAdvaitamustbecomeliving–poetic–ineverydaylife;outofhopelesslyintricatemythologymustcomeconcretemoralforms;outofbewilderingYogi-ismmustcomethemostscientificandpracticalpsychology–andallthismustbeputinaformsothatachildmaygraspit.Thatismylife’swork(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,pp.104-105,emphasisadded).

ItisthisvisionofhisthatresultedinVivekanandapresentingHindutraditionsinaway,

whichhebelieved,wouldnotonlyearntheWest’srespect,but,atthesametime,make

Hindusproudoftheirrichheritage.Ironically,itislargelyduetohissuccessintheWest,

wherehewasabletopresentHinduideasinamannerthatmadethembothattractive

65InSwamiVivekanandaintheWest:NewDiscoveries(2013),MarieLouiseBurkeoffersadetailedaccountofVivekananda’stravelsandthepeoplehemetandcultivatedrelationshipswith.Henotonlyengagedwithanimpressivearrayofforeignersbutalsodevelopedlongandmeaningfulbondswithmanyofthem.

178

andpowerful,whichgavehimthemomentumtoreturntoIndiaanddemonstratetohis

countrymenwhyhisinterpretationofHindutraditionswaseffective.Ifoneaddsthisto

thefactthathissuccesscoincidedwiththerisingpopularityoftheIndiannationalist

movement,whowerealsolookingforwaystouniteIndiaunderasinglebanner,thenit

becomeseasiertounderstandwhyVivekananda’sideasweresoinfluential.

AsweturnnowtoexaminehowVivekanandapresentedtheseideastohisIndian

audience,wemustbeawareofafewconsequenceswiththisapproach.Since

Vivekananda’s‘repackaging’ofHindutraditionsemphasizedtheconceptsusually

associatedwithVedanta,thisresultedinahierarchythateffectedthediversetraditions

thatrepresentHinduphilosophicthought.Vivekanandawasnotthefirstpersonto

overemphasizetheimportanceoftheVedantaortheUpanishads.Aswehavediscussed

inpreviouschapters,bothIndians,andWesterners,beforehimhadusedthistactic

extensively.Now,weneedtostudyhowVivekanandaimpactedthistrendandthe

ensuingrepercussionstheyhad.Asecond,relatedconsequenceofVivekananda’s

analysiswasthedemotionofdualism,orbhaktiandthetraditionsandritualsassociated

withthevariousgods.ThisresultedinmanyHindusbelievingthattheirconvictionina

SagunaBrahmanwassomehowlessadvancedthantheideasassociatedwithaNirguna

Brahman,asentimentthatcontinuestothrivetoday.Sinceitwastheabilitytocoexistin

relativeharmonywithothers,whosebeliefstructurewasnotonlydifferentfromtheirs,

butwhosefinalperceptionofthedivinewasatcrosspurposeswiththeirown,the

creationofthishierarchywas,andcontinuestobedeeplyproblematic.

AquickwordabouthowIwillstructurethischapterisrequiredhere.Inthis

chapterIwill,highlightcertainrecurringthemesinVivekananda’svariouspublictalks

ashetravelledfromColombo(nowSriLanka)toAlmora.Thisstrategywillbenecessary

becausetherearemanymorespeechesinthisperiodofhislife,andassuch,addressing

179

themindividuallywouldbeunnecessarilyrepetitious.Especiallysince,asweshallsee,

Vivekanandahadcertainideasthathewantedtoconveyandhebringsthemup

frequentlytodrivehispointhome.Forexample,oneofVivekananda’sfavouritestories

wasabouttwobirdsthatsatinatree,andheuseditatvarioustimeswhilehewasin

theUnitedStates.HereferredtoitagaininaspeechhemadeuponhisreturntoIndia:

Uponthesametreetherearetwobirdsofbeautifulplumage,mostfriendlytoeachother,oneeatingthefruits,theothersittingtherecalmandsilentwithouteating–theoneinthelowerbrancheatingsweetandbitterfruitsinturnandbecominghappyandunhappy,buttheotheroneonthetop,calmandmajestic;heeatsneithersweetnorbitterfruits,caresneitherforhappinessnormisery,immersedinhisownglory.Thisisthepictureofthehumansoul.…Mancatchesaglimpse,thenagainheforgetsandgoesoneatingthesweetandbitterfruitsoflife;perhapsafteratimehecatchesanotherglimpse,andthelowerbirdgoesnearerandnearertothehigherbirdasblowsafterblowsarereceived.Ifhebefortunatetoreceivehardknocks,thenhecomesnearerandnearertohiscompanion,theotherbird,hislife,hisfriend;andasheapproacheshim,hefindsthatthelightfromthehigherbirdisplayingaroundhisownplumage;andashecomesnearerandnearer,lo!thetransformationisgoingon.Thenearerandnearerhecomes,hefindshimselfmeltingaway,asitwere,untilhehasentirelydisappeared.Hedidnotreallyexist;itwasbutthereflectionoftheotherbirdwhowastherecalmandmajesticamidstthemovingleaves.Itwasallhisglory,thatupperbird’s.Hethenbecomesfearless,perfectlysatisfied,calmlyserene.Inthisfigure,theUpanishadstakeyoufromthedualistictotheutmostAdvaiticconception(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3.pp.235-236).66WiththewayVivekanandatoldthistaleonewasimmediatelymadeawareofan

inherenthierarchy.Afterall,theonlywayforanybodytobefreeandmajestic,likethe

birdonthetopbranch,wasbyadoptingVedanticideals.Therewasahigherandalower

levelinthisstory,andbyusingthisancientHinduanalogy,Vivekanandatransmittedthe

messagethatVedantawasthehigherideal.And,ifyoudidnotadoptVedanta,oratleast

aspiredtoit,thenyoucouldnotfindhappinessormoksha.WhereasVivekanandawas

notthefirstpersontointerpretVedanticideologyinthismanner,hewasoneofthefirst

elitestofindhimselfinapositiontoaddressapan-Indianaudience.Forexample,while

66ThisisanadaptationoftheparableoftwobirdsfromtheMundakaUpanishadIII.1.1-3,whichseekstoidentifytherelationshipbetweenparamatamanandjivatman

180

bothBankimchandraandRammohanwerelargelylimitedtotheirBengaliaudience,

VivekanandawaspromotingthisVedanticmessagetothecountryatlarge.Amessage

thatwassopowerfulthatitcontinuestoinfluenceHinduthoughttoday.Manyhave

askedwhythiswasproblematic,andthequestionisavalidone.Theshortansweris

thatbyallowingahierarchytobecreatedinIndia,and,byplacingVedantaattheapex,a

crucialaspectofHindusocietywasatriskofbeinglost.Inthischapter,andtheone

concludingthisstudy,IwillnotonlyhighlighthowVivekanandawasinstrumentalin

presentingthishierarchyinawaywhichmadeitextremelyattractivetohisfellow

countrymen,butIwillalsotryandshedsomelightonwhyhisideascanstillundermine

manylayersofHinduthought,practiceandcustom,whichinturncanshakethevery

foundationofmodernIndiaanditsdiversetraditions.

‘ColonialMasculinity’,‘Musclesofironandnervesofsteel’67

Thefirstthingthatoneperceiveswhenonereadsthewelcomespeechesthat

weregivenuponVivekananda’sreturntoIndiaistheenthusiasmwithwhichhewas

received.Thesespeechesemphasizethatthepeoplewelcominghim,inthemanyplaces

wherehestoppeduponhisreturntoIndia,wereenamouredbyhisapparenttriumphin

theWest.However,itsoonbecomesevidentthatwhereasVivekananda’soverall

successinterestedthem,itwasoneparticularaspectofhisaccomplishmentsthatmade

arealimpactonhowtheyviewedVivekanandaandhismethods.Mostintroductory

speakersmarvelledathowVivekanandahadsucceededinpromotingtheideathat

HinduphilosophyshouldbeadmiredandlaudedbytheWest.Especiallysince,this,in

67Iamnotunawareofthemanyissuesthatfeminists,likemyself,canandshouldhavewithhowmasculinitywasprivilegedduringthiseraingeneral,andbyVivekanandainparticular.However,forthepurposesofthissectionIwillnotunderscoretheseissuesleavingthemtobeaddressedinthechapterthatfollows.

181

turn,hadhighlightedthevalueoftraditionalconceptstotheHindumasses,particularly

theelitereformers,manyofwhomhad,fortoolong,ignoredthemeritsoftheirnative

traditions.Forinstance,onJan15,1897,whenVivekanandalandedinColombo,MrP.

CoomaraSwamyoftheLegislativeCouncilofCeylonstated:

WesternnationsowethepricelessboonofbeingplacedinlivingcontactwiththespiritualgeniusofIndia,whiletomanyofourowncountrymen,deliveredfromtheglamourofWesterncivilisation,thevalueofourgloriousheritagehasbeenbroughthome(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.103).

ItisinterestingtoreadhowsimilarthesesentimentswereamongstVivekananda’s

Indianadmirers,andhowtheyweremotivatedbyhisrepackagingofHinduideas.One

issoonabletodiscernthatVivekanandahadnotonlydemonstratedhowHinduideas

wererelevantinthemodernworld,but,thathehadinfact,atleastintheeyesofhis

compatriots,provedthatinsomerespectstheycouldbeconsideredsuperior.For

example,onetacticthatVivekanandausedwastherepackagingoftheconceptofyoga,

therepercussionsofwhichcontinuetobefelttoday.PetervanderVeerobservesin

ImperialEncounters(2006):

AmajorachievementwasVivekananda’screationofyogaastheIndianscienceofsupraconsciousness.YogaisaSanskritwordthatcanbetranslatedas“discipline.”Ithasacomplexhistorywithanumberofdisparatetraditions,buttheclassicaltextisPatanjali’sYoga-sutraswhichwasprobablycomposedaroundthefifthcenturyA.D.YogawasnowmadeintotheunifyingsignoftheIndiannation–andnotonlyfornationalconsumptionbutforconsumptionbytheentireworld.Thisisanewdoctrine,althoughVivekanandaemphasizedthatitwasancient“wisdom.”Especiallythebodyexercisesofhathayoga,underpinnedbyametaphysicsofmind-bodyunity,continuestobeamajorentityinthehealthindustry,especiallyintheUnitedStates.WhatIfindimportantinVivekananda’sconstructionofyogaasthecoreofHindu“spirituality”isthatitisdevoidofanyspecificdevotionalcontentthatwouldinvolve,forexample,templeworshipandthusatheologicalandritualpositioninsectariandebates.Vivekanandais,firstandforemost,interestedinHinduunity(vanderVeer,2006,p.73).WhatthisexampledemonstratesisthatVivekananda’sinterpretationsofancient

scripturesgaveIndianstheopportunitytoholdtheirheadsuphighamongst

Westerners.And,perhapsevenmoreimportantly,showedmany,whohadrejectedtheir

182

Indianheritage,thattheyweremistakentobelievethattheanswerstheysoughtforthe

advancementofIndiansocietycouldnotbefoundinnativetexts.InVivekananda,Hindu

philosophyseemedtohavefoundavoicethatcouldresonatewithbothWesternand

Indianaudiences.HismessagethatIndiawasthegreatestnation,deliveredinhis

uncompromisingauthoritativetone,onforeignsoil,wasinfectious.Vivekanandaclearly

believedthatwhereasIndianswerenotopenlyaggressive,thisdidnotmeanthatthey

hadnobackbone;insteadhearguedthatthisbackbonewasnotpolitically,socially,or

materialisticallyinclinedbutratherspirituallyoriented(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,

p.314).OnecannothelpbutspeculateifVivekanandaused‘religion’ashis‘weaponof

choice’becauseheknewthatthiswouldallowhimtomakepoliticalstatementsand

declarationswithoutimpunity.WasthishisTrojanhorse?Wasthisaclevertacticthat

assuagedthecolonizersconcernsaboutpoliticalunrest?AsweexploreVivekananda’s

viewsonpoliticalandnationaltopicslaterinthischapter,perhapswewillbeableto

makeaneducatedguessastowhetherhismotiveswereclear,oriftheywere

intentionallyambiguous.

Thatbeingsaidhowever,itisevidentthatVivekanandawasdeeplyconcerned

abouttheimpressionthathadbeencreatedduringtheBritishRaj,whichsuggestedthat

Indianmenwereweak,andlackedacertainmanlinessthatWesternmenpossessed.

Thisimageofthe‘effeminate’,andthereforeweak,‘Bengalibabu’isexaminedinsome

detailbyMrinaliniSinhainColonialmasculinity(1995).Sinhafirstelaboratesonwhat

thistitle‘effeminateBengali’babumeansandhowitcametobeapplied,atleast

initially,specificallytotheWesterneducatedBengalimenwhooftenheldclerical

positionsinBritishIndia:

the‘Bengalibabu’alludestoaquitespecifichistoricalorderingofcolonialmasculinity.Bythelatenineteenthcentury,thepoliticsofcolonialmasculinitywasorganizedalongadescendingscale:seniorBritishofficialsassociatedwith

183

theadministrativeandmilitaryestablishment,andelitenon-officials,thosenotdirectlyrelatedtothecolonialadministration,occupiedpositionsatthetopofthescale.Othergroupsandclassesthatmadeupcolonialsocietysupposedlysharedsome,thoughnotall,oftheattributesassociatedwiththefigureofthe‘manlyEnglishman’.Inthiscolonialorderingofmasculinity,thepoliticallyself-consciousIndianintellectualsoccupiedauniqueplace:theyrepresentedan‘unnatural’or‘perverted’formofmasculinity.HencethisgroupofIndians,themosttypicalrepresentativesofwhichatthetimeweremiddle-classBengaliHindus,becamethequintessentialreferentsforthatodiouscategorydesignatedas‘effeminatebabus’(1995,p.2).

Eventuallyhowever,thislabelwasextendedbeyondtheboundariesofBengalandcame

tobeappliedmoregenerallytoIndianmiddleclassmen(Sinha,1995,p.16).According

toSinha,thisimagethathadbeencultivatedbythecolonialists,inordertorationalize

theirdominantroleintheIndiansubcontinent,hadbecomearallyingpointamongst

Indianpoliticalleaderswhowereintentonhighlightingthemostdemeaningaspectsof

colonialrule:

thedegenerationofthebodyoftheeliteHindumalebecamethesymbolofthenegativeimpactofcolonialruleonindigenoussocietyasawhole.Ontheotherhand,theself-perceptionofeffeminacyalsofacilitatedachallenge,howeverlimitedandcontradictory,tothedominanceofthecolonizingelites;fortheemasculationofIndianswasalsothebasisforchallengingspecificcolonialpolicies(1995,p.7).

Indeed,itbecamequiteroutineforIndianleadersinthesecondhalfofthenineteenth

centurytodrawattentionto,whattheyperceivedtobe,aspecificallyIndianweakness

andtrytofindwaystoremedytheissue:

Prominentnineteenth-centuryBengaliintellectualswereindeedconcernedabouttheconsequencesofeffeminacy.Inthe1860’sthefamousTagoresofJorasankoandtheorganizationwithwhichtheyweremostcloselyassociated,theAdiBrahmoSamaj,launchedaconcerteddriveforthephysicalregenerationoftheBengalis.BankimchandraChatterjee,oneofthemostfamousBengaliwriters,oscillatedbetweenmockingthemodernbabuandattemptingtoanswerthechargeofBengalieffeminacywhichhecalledBharatKalankaortheIndian

Stigma.Bengalisocialandreligiousreformer,SwamiVivekanand[sic],wassimilarlyagreatproponentofcultivatinga‘manly’physique,inhismostquotedwordsonthesubjectheisreportedtohaveremarked:‘YouwillbenearertoGodthroughfootballthanthroughtheBhagwad-Gita(Sinha,1995,p.21).

184

Vivekanandamadestatementssuchastheseliberallyimmediatelyuponhis

returntoIndia.However,whatmakesVivekananda’sdeclarationsunique,againstwhat

heperceivedtobeaweaknessamongsthiscountrymen,washowhearguedthatthis

needforstrengthand‘manliness’wouldbestbemetwithAdvaitaphilosophyrather

thantheprevalentemphasisondualism:

WhenIwasinAmerica,IheardoncethecomplaintmadethatIwaspreachingtoomuchofAdvaita,andtoolittleofdualism.Ay,Iknowwhatgrandeur,whatoceansoflove,whatinfinite,ecstaticblessingsandjoythereareinthedualisticlove-theoriesofworshipandreligion.Iknowitall.Butthisisnotthetimewithustoweepeveninjoy;wehavehadweepingenough;nomoreisthisthetimeforustobecomesoft.Thissoftnesshasbeenwithustillwehavebecomelikemassesofcottonandaredead.Whatourcountrynowwantsaremusclesofironand

nervesofsteel,giganticwillswhichnothingcanresist(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.190,emphasisadded).

ThisassertionnotonlypointstoVivekananda’sacquiescenceofthisnegativelabel,but

indeed,highlightsinherentattitudeswhichdeservetobeexamined.Thefirstand

foremostofwhichwashisopinionthatdualistswereweakandassuchhadadopteda

beliefsystemwhichwasholdingthembackfromachievingtruegreatness.Considering

thatVivekananda’sguru,Ramakrishna,wasgiventoweepingwithhisdeity,itisrather

interestingthatVivekanandaconsideredthisbehaviourasasignofweakness.For

example,Silpointsout:

He[Vivekananda]wasalsoquitecontemptuousofecstaticenthusiasm.Towardtheendofhisguru’slife,attheShyampukurresidence,NarendranathopenlyinveighedagainsttheParamahamsastyleofdancesandtrancesindulgedinbyseveraleageryoungdevoteesoftheMaster.Heboldlydeclaredthatsheddingtears,experiencinghorripilationor“evenatemporarywithdrawalofnormalconsciousness”was“theresultofnervousweakness”(1997,p.104).AnotherfactorthatmakesVivekananda’santi-dualismstancenoteworthyisthat

hechangedhisemphasissubstantially,whendiscussingAdvaitawithhisIndian

audience,incomparisonwiththespeecheshegaveattheParliament.WhenintheWest,

VivekanandachampionedAdvaitaVedantabystatingthattherewasnophilosophythat

185

resonatedasdeeplywithahumanbeing’sdesiretobecompassionateandloving.For

instance,attheParliamenthetoldhisaudiencethatthebestwaytoworshipthe

“AlmightyandtheAll-merciful”was“Throughlove.‘Heistobeworshippedastheone

beloved,dearerthaneverythinginthisandthenextlife”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.1,

p.11).WhenhereturnedtoIndiahowever,henolongeraccentuatedVedanta’sbasisof

love,butratheremphasizeditscompatibilitywith‘musclesofironandnervesofsteel’!

Heusedthisargumentagainstmysticismandoccultismaswell,onceagainattacking

someofthebasicpremisesofRamakrishna’steachings.Now,therecanbenodoubtof

Vivekananda’sknowledgeofRamakrishna’smysticleanings,especiallysincehe

repeatedlywarnedhisbrotherdisciplestounderplaythoseaspectsofRamakrishna

whenspeakingoftheirmaster.Forexample,inaletterwrittenfromtheUnitedStates,

on30thNovember,1894,toKidi(P.SingaraveluMudaliyar),abrotherdisciple,

Vivekanandaasserted:

AstothewonderfulstoriespublishedaboutShriRamakrishna,Iadviseyoutokeepclearofthemandthefoolswhowritethem.Theyaretrue,butthefoolswillmakeamessofthewholething,Iamsure.Hehadawholeworldofknowledgetoteach,whyinsistuponunnecessarythingsasmiraclesreallyare!Theydonotproveanything(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.54).

Similarly,herepeatedlyadvisedhisfellow-disciplestoavoidreferringtoRamakrishna

asa‘God’,oranincarnation,asthatwoulddiminishtheVedanticaspectsofhismessage.

InalettertohisbrotherdiscipleSarada(SwamiTrigunatitananda)fromNewYorkin

Aprilof1896hestated:

ThatRamakrishnaParamahamsawasGod–andallthatsortofthing–hasnogoincountrieslikethis.M–hasatendencytoputthatstuffdowneverybody’sthroat,butthatwillmakeourmovementalittlesect.Youkeepalooffromsuchattempts;atthesametime,ifpeopleworshipasGod,noharm.Neitherencouragenordiscourage.Themasseswillalwayshavetheperson,thehigheronestheprinciple;wewantboth.Butprinciplesareuniversal,notpersons.

186

Thereforesticktotheprincipleshetaught,letpeoplethinkwhatevertheylikeofhisperson(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.362,emphasisinoriginal).68

ConsideringthatRamakrishnaisrememberedasoneofIndia’smostimportantmodern

mystics,itistroublingtohearthatVivekanandamadelightof,dismissed,andeven

criticizedthisaspectofhismaster’steachings.JeffreyKripalpointsout:

Ratherthansacrificehisagendatothefireofhistoricalaccuracy,however,theyoungpreachermuchpreferredtothrowhisMasterintotheflames.Consider,forexample,hisreactiontoafellowmonk’schargethat,byfalselyclaimingthatsocialserviceliesatthecoreofRamakrishna’smessage,hehadintroducedWesternideasofserviceandactionintoalifewheretheydidnotbelong.Narendra’sreplyisunambiguous:“Whatdoyouknow?Youareanignorantman…YourBhaktiissentimentalnonsense,whichmakesyouimpotent…Handsoff!WhocaresforyourRamakrishna?WhocaresforBhaktiandMukti?WhocareswhatyourScripturessay?…IamnotaslaveofRamakrishna”(1998,p.172,emphasisinoriginal).ItisimportanttomentionherethateventhoughVivekanandadidmake

commentslikethesewhenspeakingprivately,orinhispersonalcorrespondence,hedid

notcommitthemistakeofmakingtheseclaimsinpublic,especiallyuponhisreturnto

India.Instead,hecleverlyacknowledgedhisguru’sdevotiontobhaktiandevenusedit

tochallengesomeoftheargumentsmadebyIndianreformers(aninteresting

manoeuvrethatwewilldiscussinthenextsection).69Assuch,Vivekanandawascareful

toarticulate,inpublic,thatwhenhewasspeakingofmystics,orweepingdevotees,he

wasnotreferringtohisguru,forwhomhehadnothingbuttheutmostrespect.Itcould

alsobepossiblethatVivekanandawasreactingtohowmysticismwasbeing

disassociatedfromtheso-calledrationalandscientific‘religions’oftheEnlightenment

68‘M’wasMahendranathGupta,oneofRamakrishna’sprimarybiographers.69However,Ramakrishna’sdiscipleswerenotaseasilyconvincedandmanyscholarshavehighlightedVivekananda’sdisagreementswithsomeofRamakrishna’smostprominenthouseholderdisciples.TheymakeanefforttodemonstratehowdifferentRamakrishna’smethodsandideologywaswhencomparedtoVivekananda;andhowthisoftenledtoacrimoniouscircumstancesbetweenRamakrishna’sfollowers.Forexample,Chattopadhyaya(1999)pp.156-157,234-235;Sen(1993)p.312;Sil(1997)pp.103-113.

187

era,apointthatKingarticulateswhenhequestionsthelabel‘Hinduism’.Ifthisisthe

case,thenitstandstoreasonwhyRamakrishna’smysticismdidnotsitwellwith

Vivekananda’sownvisionofastrongVedanticHindupublicthathewasendeavouring

toinspire:

Wehavebecomeweak,andthatiswhyoccultismandmysticismcometous–thesecreepythings;theremaybegreattruthsinthem,buttheyhavenearlydestroyedus.Makeyournervesstrong.Whatwewantismusclesofironandnervesofsteel.Wehaveweptlongenough.Nomoreweeping,butstandonyourfeetandbemen.…ThetruthsoftheUpanishadsarebeforeyou.Takethemup,liveuptothem,andthesalvationofIndiawillbeathand(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.224-225).

ThisskillofVivekananda’s,wherehetookargumentsandallegationsmadebytheWest

againstIndiansociety,andfoundwaystousetheVedas,particularlyAdvaitaVedanta,to

contestthem,iswhataidedhiseffortstoplaceVedantaattheapexofIndianphilosophy.

Infact,itisthiskindofmanoeuvringthatgivesmeaningtoSinha’spremise,which,in

turn,harksbacktoNandy’sassertionsthatthewallsseparatingthecolonizerandthe

colonizedareporous:

thecategoriesofthecolonizerandthecolonizedarenotfixedorself-evidentcategories.Althoughthesecategoriesmayappeartohaverepresented‘natural’differencesofraceornationalorigin,therewasnothingnaturalorfixedaboutthem.Therewasaconstantneed,therefore,todefine,andredefinethecoloniserandthecolonised.Moreover,sincethecoloniserandthecolonisedwerethemselveshistoricallyconstructedcategories,therelationsbetweenthetwowereneitherfixednorgivenforalltime.Indeed,therelationsbetweenthecoloniserandcolonisedwereconstantlyrearticulatedinaccordancewiththecontinuallychangingpoliticalandeconomicimperativesofcolonialrule(Sinha,1995,p.1).

Vivekanandaisaprimeexampleofthisstrategywherebyheendeavouredtoadjust,

accentuateandaccommodatehisemphasisontheVedantatobetterpackagehis

messageuponhisreturntoIndia.And,sincetheseeffortsofhiswerebasedonthe

premisethatIndiawasmorespirituallyadvancedthantheirBritishcolonizers,thiswas

188

perceived,atleastbyhisIndiancompatriots,asadirectchallengetothesupremacyof

theWest.Thus,Vivekanandadeclared:

Greatworksaretobedone,wonderfulpowershavetobeworkedout,wehavetoteachothernationsmanythings…Thisisthemotherlandofphilosophy,ofspirituality,andofethics,…myexperienceoftheworldleadsmetostandonfirmgroundandmaketheboldstatementthatIndiaisstillthefirstandforemostofallthenationsoftheworldintheserespects(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.147).Nandywhoisparticularlyconcernedwiththepsychologyofboththecolonizers

andthecolonized(seeChapter1),raisessomequestionsaboutthisemphasison

masculinityanditsensuingramifications.Hecontendsthatduringthelatenineteenth

andearlytwentiethcenturytherewereseveraleliteIndianmenwhoreactedtohow

masculinitywasprivilegedinWesternsocieties.TheseIndianelitehadboughtintothe

hyper-masculineimagethatthecolonizershadadoptedinordertowarranttheir

motivesforthecolonizationofIndia.OnetacticthattheBritishadoptedwastoargue

thatoverthecenturiestheIndianmanhadbecomeweakandeffeminate.Thistheory

allowedtheEnglishtojustifytheirpresenceastheforeignrulersofIndia.Because,after

all,asNandyremindsus,“[c]olonialismminusacivilizationalmissionisnocolonialism

atall.Ithandicapsthecolonizermuchmorethanithandicapsthecolonized”(2006,

p.11).Nandysurmisesthatboththecolonizersandthecolonizedboughtintothetheory

thattheIndianmanhadbecomeunfittorulebecausehelacked“whatinthedominant

cultureofthecolonyhadalreadybecomethefinaldifferentiaeofmanliness:aggression,

achievement,control,competitionandpower”(2006,p.9).AccordingtoNandy,Indian

elitessuchasMadhusudan,Bankimchandra70andVivekanandawererespondingtothis

colonialidealwhentheychampionedmasculinetraitsamongsttheirIndianbrethren.

Furthermore,hecontends“[b]ythetimeVivekanandaenteredthescene,theWesthad

70SeeChapter1whereIrefertoNandy’sanalysisofbothMichaelMadhusudanDuttaandBankimchandraChattopadhyay.

189

madedeeperinroadsintothemindsofIndians.Tohim,therefore,therealthreatwas

theWestwithin”(Nandy,2014,p.292).Assuch,Vivekanandafounditnecessarytouse

theWesternidealsofmasculinitytoconvincehisfellowcountrymen,whohadalready

internalizedthisWesternvaluesystem.Infact,Nandygoesastepfurtherwhenhe

arguesthatVivekanandaandDayanandaSaraswati(whohelumpstogetherasthe“two

redoubtableSwamis,”acharacterizationwhichisproblematicinandofitself)

“identifiedtheWestwithpowerandhegemony,whichinturntheyidentifiedwitha

superiorcivilization”(2006,pp.24-25).

Now,whereasVivekanandamayhaveagreedthattheWestwasmoreadvanced

incertainaspects,itishardtofindcredenceforthisblanketstatementthattheWest

wasa‘superiorcivilization’thatNandyprojectsontohim.Ontheotherhand,onehasto

acknowledgethatNandyisrightwhenhesuggeststhatMadhusudan,Bankimchandra

andVivekananda,allsearchedforawaytocommunicatethisneedforaggressionby

highlightingexampleswithinHindumythology:

Manynineteenth-centuryIndianmovementsofsocial,religiousandpoliticalreform–andmanyliteraryandartmovementsaswell–triedtomakeKsatriyahoodthe‘true’interfacebetweentherulersandruledasanew,nearlyexclusiveindicatorofauthenticIndianness.TheoriginsandfunctionsofthisnewstressonKsatriyahoodisbestevidencedbythefactthat,contrarytothebeliefsofthosecarryingthepsychologicalbaggageofcolonialism,thesearchformartialIndiannessunderwroteoneofthemostpowerfulcollaborationiststrandswithinIndiansociety(Nandy,2006,p.7).

Forexample,BankimchandrachosetodothisbyremodellingtheimageofKrishna,

presentinghimlessasaloverofgopisandmoreasaKshatriyaking.Ontheotherhand,

MadhusudanvilifiedtheKshatriyakingRama,whopinedfor,andthenrejected,hiswife

SitaandinsteadhelduptheRakshasakingRavanaasthetruemodelforIndian

manliness.Whereasbothimagesachievedsometraction,Hindustodayhavenot

discardedtheirlovefortheKrishnawhocontinuestobethecentreoftheever-popular

190

rasa-lila.Similarly,whereasmanyhavequestionedRama’streatmentofSita,theRam-

lilacontinuestobeanintegralaspectforagreatnumberofHindudevotees.

Vivekanandachoseadifferenttactic;atacticthatnotonlyresonatedwithhis

audiencebutalsohelpedhimtoestablishAdvaitaVedantaasatooltoredeemIndia’s

‘lost’manliness.AccordingtoNandy,Victorianculturerecognizedthatthereweretwo

kindsofmasculinity:

thelowerclasses[who]wereexpectedtoactouttheirmanlinessbydemonstratingtheirsexualprowess;theupperclasses[who]wereexpectedtoaffirmtheirmasculinitythroughsexualdistance,abstinenceandself-control…thelatterwascompatiblewith,ofallthings,onestrandinthetraditionalIndianconceptofmanliness.TheBrahmaninhiscerebral,self-denyingasceticismwasthetraditionalmasculinecounterpointtothemoreviolent,‘virile’,activeKshatriya,thelatterrepresenting–howeveroddthismanyseemtothemodernconsciousness–thefeminineprincipleinthecosmos(2006,p.10).

Thisargumentsuggeststhatthebrahminmanwhoisaustereandcerebralresonates

wellwiththeBritishversionofahighbrowupper-class‘manly’gentleman.Ifthatisthe

case,thenitiseasytounderstandhowamanlikeVivekanandawhowasasanyasiand

thereforenaturallyshouldbebothaustereandcelibate,andwho,inthiscase,wasalso

intellectuallycompetentcouldhavemadesuchanimpact.Herewasamanwhoboththe

elite,aswellasthecommonman,couldidentifywithandwhosequalitiesresonated

withaspectsoftheirownculturalbackground,albeitrecessiveones.Nandyobserves

thatwhentwoculturescollideitiscommonfortraitsthatarenormallyrecessiveto

becomemoreevidentthereby“alter[ing]theoriginalculturalprioritiesonbothsides

andbring[ing]tothecentreofthecolonialculturesubculturespreviouslyrecessiveor

subordinateinthetwoconfrontingcultures”(2006,p.2).

PerhapsVivekanandawasnotsimplymimickingWesternidealsblindlybut

instead,wasaccessingaspectsofhisownculturalidentitytoreachouttohis

countrymen.This,inturn,allowhimtoprivilegeAdvaiticideasthathadpreviouslybeen

191

championedbyasceticswhowerenowbeingidentified,atleastsubconsciously,asthe

‘manly’versionoftheIndianman.Itisdifficulttoclaimdefinitivelywhetherthiswasan

intentionaltacticusedbyVivekanandaor,ifinstead,andthisseemsmorelikely,he

instinctivelyreflectedhisownquestforperfectionasasanyasiontoHindumenin

general.Bethatasitmay,theendresultwasthatVivekanandahadfoundthatAdvaitin

philosophy,withitsemphasisonausterityanditsinsistenceonamonisticphilosophy

(aphilosophythatapparentlyrestedona‘higherbranch’thanbhakti),wasonewayfor

Hindumentobemore‘manly’.

Reformer,Revivalist,Traditionalist,Orthodox…

AnotherrecurringthemeinVivekananda’sspeeches,uponhisreturntoIndia,

washispenchanttocritiquethevariouseliteIndianmovementsthatwerecommanding

attentionandformingalliancesinIndia.Forexample,hedidnotdisguisehis

condescensionfortheIndianreformmovement.

TothereformersIwillpointoutthatIamagreaterreformerthananyoneofthem.Theywanttoreformonlylittlebits.Iwantrootandbranchreform.Wherewedifferisinthemethod.Theirsisthemethodofdestruction,mineisthatofconstruction.Idonotbelieveinreform;Ibelieveingrowth(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.213).

Obviously,thisleadsonetoquestionwhetherVivekananda’svehementdistasteforthe

reformersofhisdayindicatedthathewas,instead,morecomfortableplacinghimselfin

therevivalistcamp.However,onesimplyhastoreadVivekananda’sargumentsagainst

revivaliststorealizethatthislabelwasnotacomfortablefitforhisidealseither.

revivalsometimesbreedsfanaticism,sometimesgoestotheextreme,sothatoftenitisnoteveninthepowerofthosewhostarttherevivaltocontrolitwhenithasgonebeyondacertainlength(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.172).

BeforeanalysingVivekananda’sargumentsaboutthesenativeresponsesto

colonization,itisnecessarytoacknowledgethatpartoftheproblemherelieswiththe

192

difficultiesassociatedwithdefiningsomeofthetermsusedbothbythemovements

themselves,andbyothers,todescribetheirdifferingagendas.Thisleadsusbackto

Hacker’sassertions(seeChapter3),whereIhighlightedthedilemmawithusinglabels

suchas‘revivalist’and‘reformer’astheycannotberigidlydefined.Rather,theyshould

beunderstoodasfluidcategoriesrelativetothegroupsandcircumstancesthey

described;anargumentthatisexploredinsomedetailbyVasudhaDalmiainThe

NationalizationofHinduTraditions(1997).AccordingtoDalmia,therevivalist

movementsplayedamuchbiggerroleineffectingchangeincolonialIndiathantheyare

usuallygivencreditfor:

Thoughthemoreradicalreformmovementsservedascatalyststhemostvitalissuesconcerningnotionsofcultural,religiousandpoliticalidentitywerethrashedoutinthetraditionalistquartersaswell,andperhapswithmorelastingeffect,anditwasherethatthefaceofmodernHinduism–withinwhichtempleandvarnacontinuetoplayaprominentrole–wasfinallytobecoined(1999,p.4).

Dalmiacontendsthatreformmovementswerequitecomfortablewiththislabelsinceit

suggestedthattheirleaderswereopentochangeandaccommodation.Ontheother

hand,revivalistsrejectedanyassociationwithreformmovements,andobjectedtothe

suggestionthattheysupportedreform(evenifthiswastrue),becausetheydidnot

wanttoadvertisethemodificationstheyoccasionallyadvocated:

Thechangesintraditionalformations,widespreadastheyare,aresimplynotregistered,sincetheydonotchoosetodefinethemselvesasdifferent,andinfactemphasizetheconstancyofthetraditiontheystandfor(Dalmia,1999,pp.4-5).

Furthermore,shestates:

thenineteenthcenturysocialandreligiousleadership,speciallywhendefendingsanatanadharma,developeditsowndeliberatelyantiquarianvocabularytodesignateitsprioritiesandpreferences,andequallydeliberately,itsetitselfofffromthemodern.Thetraditional/modernpolarity,usedtoestablishthedistinctionbetweentheindigenousandthealien,wasapartoftheself-representationofthosewhosoughttodepicttheirtraditionasstandingfirmagainstthepressureofchange(Dalmia,1999,p.5).

193

Dalmiaemphasizesthatthiswassimplyatacticemployedbyrevivalistsandshouldnot

bemisunderstoodtosuggestthattheydidnot,infact,executenumerouschangesin

accordancewiththechangingpoliticalandsocialclimate.Asaresult,Dalmiaarguesthat

theterm‘revivalist’isnotausefulonesinceitcanbebothlimitingandnegative:

‘Revival’thenisnotonlymisleadingsinceitdisallowsthepossibilityofchange,ithastheaddeddisadvantageofhavingbeenusedpejorativelyalltoooften,asifitreferredtonomorethanoutmodedreligiouspracticewhichhadlaininertuptothen,butwhichhadultimatelyrefusedtobesuppressedbythemoreenlightenedreformmovements,suchastheBrahmoorevenAryaSamaj(1999,p.6).

Instead,shesuggeststheuseofthelabel‘traditionalist’“fortheironebindingfeature

wasthestressonthesanatanataorconstancyoftradition,ratherthananybreachwith

someoriginal,morepristinepast”(Dalmia,1999,p.7).Asforthelabel‘reformer’,she

believes,andIconcur,thatatleastforthetimebeing,itseemstoserveitspurposeas

longasitisnotcoupledwiththeterm‘Neo-Hindu’(alabelwhichHackerusedliberally

butwhichDalmiastates“reekswithinauthenticity”(Dalmia,1999,p.7)andis

recognizedasacomplexlabel,whichhasbothsimilaritiesanddifferenceswhen

comparedtotheterm‘traditionalist’.Weshouldnotlosesightofthefactthatwhereas

traditionalistswantedtoholdontotheirinheritedbeliefsystemtheywerealsoaware

thatsomechangewasnecessary.Especiallysince,theywereendeavouring,atthesame

time,tobringtogethersomeextremelydisparateideasunderasinglebanner;nomatter

iftheylabelledit‘Hinduism’or‘Vedantism’or‘sanatanadharma’.Withherdetailed

analysis,Dalmiawarnsusagainstusinglabelssuchasthesewithoutcautionsince,

accordingtoher,“reformisttendencieswerecommontoallthemovements.The

differencelayonlyinselectionandthedegreeofemphasis”(Dalmia,1999,p.7).

Furthermore,sheremindsus:

Initselftheprocessofthusweldingdisparateelementswasnotnovel.Therehadalwaysbeenstrongassimilativetendenciesinthesmartatraditionswhichhad

194

triedtoprojectunitarinessandwhichhadinevitablyrecurredtotheVedasasthelegitimatinginstance(Dalmia,1999,p.430).

Dalmia’sargumentsbecomeparticularlynoteworthywhenweapplythemto

Vivekananda.Wealreadyknowthathedidnotlikethelabel‘reformer’sincehewas

constantlyattackingthemandwouldhavebeenloathtobecategorizedasone:

Igrantthatwehavetotakeagreatmanythingsfromothernations,thatwehavetolearnmanylessonsfromoutside;butIamsorrytosaythatmostofourmodernreformmovementshavebeeninconsiderateimitationsofWesternmeansandmethodofwork;andthatsurelywillnotdoforIndia;therefore,itisthatallourrecentreformmovementshavehadnoresult(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.195).

Ontheotherhand,hewasalsoquiteliberalwithhiscriticismoftraditionalists(he

referredtothemasthe‘orthodox’)whoinsistedonholdingontocertainritualsand

regulationswhichhebelievedwerenotconducivetotheadvancementofIndiainthe

modernworld:

ApettyvillagecustomseemsnowtherealauthorityandnottheteachingoftheUpanishads.ApettyideacurrentinawaysidevillageinBengalseemstohavetheauthorityoftheVedas,andevensomethingbetter.Andthatword“orthodox”,howwonderfulitsinfluence!Tothevillager,thefollowingofeverylittlebitoftheKarmaKandaistheveryheightof“orthodoxy”,andonewhodoesnotdoitistold,“Goaway,youarenomoreaHindu”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.333).

AccordingtoSen,Vivekanandahadaverycomplexrelationshipwiththeorthodox.He

arguesthatVivekanandahadbeenquitecriticaloftheHinduoppositiontotheConsent

BillthatwaspassedbytheBritishinMarch1891whichraisedtheageofsexual

intercourseforgirls,marriedorunmarried,from10yearsto12years.Thiswasadirect

blowtochildmarriageandwasviewedasanaffronttoconservativeHindupractices.

WhereasVivekanandadidnotopenlycomeoutandsupporttheConsentBill,he

consistentlyopposedearlymarriages,criticismwhichtheorthodoxdidnottakelightly:

His[Vivekananda]basiccriticismoftheorthodoxpositionontheConsentBillfolloweddirectlyfromhissharpandconsistentoppositiontotheinstitutionofearlymarriage;infacthewasplainlyupsettofindhisbrother-disciplesbackhomewereunabletoshowsuchforthrightopposition.Heshouldhaverealized

195

howeverthatsuchremonstranceswerefarmoreeasilymadefromtherelativesafetyofAmericanhomesthanfromtheheartoforthodoxsocietyinCalcutta.ThatprematuremarriageswereaprincipalcausebehindIndia’ssocialdegenerationwasnonethelessanargumentthatwasconsistentlyupheldbyVivekananda(Sen,1993,p.329).ButwhatdidVivekanandameanwhenheusedtheterm‘orthodox’,anequivocal

termevenforhim?Itwasnotalwaysclearwhetherhewasusingthistermina

derogatoryfashion;rather,itseemedtodependonthepointhewastryingtogetacross.

Thetruthis,onceagain,likemostwordsadoptedfromtheEnglishlanguage,weareleft

withanambiguousanswer.Nicholsonarticulates:

Thewordsastikaandnastikaaredifficulttotranslate.OnereasonforthisisthefluctuationinthemeaningsofthetermsthemselvesbetweendifferentperiodsoftimeanddifferentsocialcontextsinIndia.ThisdifficultybecomesevenworsewhenwelookatthosewordsinEnglishthathavebeenusedtotranslatethesetwoterms.DespitethebesteffortsofhistoriansofIndianphilosophy,thetermsusedtotranslateSanskritphilosophicalconceptsareimbuedwithEurocentric(andspecificallyChristian-centric)meanings.Thetwowordsmostcommonlyusedtotranslateastika/nastika,“orthodox’and“heterodox,”comeoutoftheChristiantheologicaltraditionandhencecarryhistoricalconnotationsthatdistorttheunderstandingofnativeIndiancategoriesofthoughtForlatemedievalVedantins,thewordastikadenotesschoolsthatnowadaysareoftendescribedas“Hindu,”andthenastikascorrespondtothenon-HinduschoolsofJainas,Buddhists,andmaterialists.YetthetermorthodoxiaandheterodoxiaintheirearlyChristianusagesdidnotsimplycorrespondtoChristianversusnon-Christiandoctrines.Rather,orthodoxiareferredtotrueChristiandoctrine,andheterodoxia,tobothfalseteachingswithinthechurch(e.g.GnosticismandArianism)andtheteachingsofpaganphilosophicalschools(2014,p.176).

Vivekananda’sideasdonotfitneatlyintoanyofthesecategoriesmakinghiman

excellentexampleofwhytheselabelsshouldbeusedonlyasguidelines,notasairtight

definitions.Whatisevidenthowever,isthateverypositionhetook,everyideahe

defended,eventuallyledbacktohisbeliefthatAdvaitaVedantawastheanswertothe

modernHindu’sneeds.Asaresult,hetailoredallhisargumentsalongtheselines;even

ifattimesitmadehimsoundlikeatraditionalist,sometimesorthodox,andatother

timeslikeareformer.Vivekananda’sagendawasclear;hewantedtoestablishthatthe

196

VedantawastheepitomeofHindutraditionsandhewasnotconcernedaboutwhich

garbhehadtodontoconvincehisreadersofthistruth.Headoptedanyofthesetitles

whenitsuitedhimanddiscardedthemwhentheydidnot.Forhim,theendjustifiedthe

means,andtheendwastoestablishVedanticsuperiorityoverallotherschoolsof

thought,EasternandWestern.

Conversely,onecouldalsoarguethatVivekanandarecognizedthatAdvaita

VedantacouldbeusedasastrategicvehicletobringdiverseHindugroupscloser

together.Ofcourse,thiscameataprice.Forexample,asDalmiapointsout,most

traditionalistsacceptedtheauthorityofboththesrutiandsmrititexts,heldthe

DharmasastrasandPuranasaslegitimateyardstickstogovernsociety,and“continue[d]

tolaystressonthecentralityofthetempleandritualpractice”(Dalmia,1999,p.8).We

alreadyknowthatthereformistsdidnotagreewiththetraditionalists’premise.Of

course,Vivekanandahadhisowninterpretationofwhichtextshadtheauthorityto

speakforhisversionof‘Hinduism’:

ThefirstclassoftruthsischieflyembodiedinourVedas,ourscriptures;thesecondintheSmritis,thePuranas,etc.WemustrememberthatforallperiodstheVedasarethefinalgoalandauthority,andifthePuranasdifferinanyrespectfromtheVedas,thatpartofthePuranasistoberejectedwithoutmercy(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.173).InEclecticismandtheModernHinduDiscourse(1999),BrianHatcherarguesthat

Vivekanandarepresents“theeclecticspiritatitsbest”(1999,p.58).Toexplainwhathe

meanswhenheusestheterm‘eclectic’,Hatcherfirstdefines‘syncretism’whichhe

claimsisoftentimeserroneouslyusedasasynonymfor‘eclecticism’.Hatcheragrees

withvanderVeer’sassessment(seeChapter4)whenhecontendsthatsyncretism

needstobedisassociatedfromitsChristiancontext.Furthermore,Hatcherarguesthat

becauseofthisassociationthislabelhasbecomenormative,therebyinfusingtheterm

witha“pejorativesenseofillegitimatemixing,asinthecorruptingofsomething

197

originallypure”(1999,p.6,emphasisinoriginal).Instead,hepresentshisownsetof

guidelinesonhowtoappropriatelydefineanddistinguishtheseterms:

(1)thehistorianofreligionhasnobusinessusingthecategoryofsyncretismasanormativecategory;(2)ifitistobeused,thenitwillserveasakindofshorthandfortheideathatreligionsareculturallyconstructedandarecontinuallytransformedthrough“thecombiningofvariousreligiousforms”;and(3)ifsoused,thentheconceptshouldbecarefullydistinguishedfromotherconcepts,mostnotablyeclecticism.Thatis,ifsyncretismisusedtorefertobroadprocessesofhistoricalchangeandsystemicinteractionamongreligions,theneclecticismshouldbeusedtorefertosomethingelse.WhatIproposeisthatweuseeclecticismtodenotenotpatternsandprocessesofhistoricalchange,butaparticularmethodofchange–amethodbasedonconsciousselection–andthesystemsofcriteriaandclassificationthatmay(ormaynot)guidethismethod.Tofollowthisdistinction,syncretismnamesahistoricalprocess,whileeclecticismnamesamethodofinterpretationandappropriation(Hatcher,1999,p.8,emphasisadded).

Keepingtheseguidelinesinmind,HatcherarguesthatmenlikeVivekananda,the

‘founders’hereferstoinChapter1,werenotrestrictedbyboundarieshistorically

createdbyphilosophicalschools,sectsoreven‘worldreligions’.(1999,p.4).Instead,

theyusedalloftheseideastofreelyconstructtheirownbrandofideology.Forexample,

inthecaseofVivekananda,hehighlightshowheusedasmatteringofconceptsfrom

Vaisesika,Nyaya,PurvaMimamsa,UttaraMimamsaandevenBuddhismtofinallycome

upwithhisownbrandofAdvaitaVedanta:

Thegoalisnotsomuchtoindicthimforfailingtoachieveconsonancewithanyparticularclassicalsystem,butsimplytohighlighttheeclecticpragmaticsofhisdiscourse:abitofNyayahere,abitofMimamsathere.And–asweshallsee–whynotthrowinatouchofBuddha’sheterodoxytoboot?ItstrikesusasoddtofindVivekanandajuxtaposingsuchdisparateauthoritiesinhisquesttouniversalizethemeansofattainingsavingknowledge.Theviolenceofhiseclecticismcangetabitdizzyingattimes(Hatcher,1999,p.65).

Whatisthemostcompelling,yetdeeplyproblematic,consequenceofthiseclecticism

however,isthatveryoftentheseeclecticideasbecomethenormativediscourse,which

iscertainlythecasewithVivekananda’sinterpretationofAdvaitaVedanta.Vivekananda

adoptedandadaptedexistingphilosophiestogethispointacross.Accordingly,he

198

developedaninterpretationthatappropriatedbitsandpiecesfromdifferentnative

sects,philosophiesandpractices.Aninterpretationthatcelebratedonlycertainaspects

ofVedantatraditions.Aninterpretationthatoftentimesalsoshowedacomplete

disregardforestablishedsystemsthatheconsideredtobeatcross-purposeswithhis

versionofAdvaitaVedanta.

ItisthisdilemmathatAnantanandRambachanseekstoaddressinTheLimitsof

Scripture(1994).Rambachanhighlightsthevastdiscrepanciesthatexistbetween

Vivekananda’sassessmentandtranslationofVedanta,versusthatofAdi

Shankaracharya(caearly8thcentury),whoisconsidered,bymostscholars,tobethe

authorityonthisparticulardarsana.71AccordingtoRambachan,Vivekanandadidnot

simplyadaptSankaracharya’sinterpretationtosuithisneedsbutrather,hearrivedata

versionthatSankaracharyahimselfwouldhavemostlikelyrejected:

UnlikeVivekananda,whopresentedtheaffirmationsofsruti[‘thatwhichisheard’i.e.TheVedas]ashavingonlyahypotheticalorprovisionalvalidityandneedingtheverificationthatonlyanubhava[personalexperience]couldprovide,Sankaraarguedforsrutiastheuniqueandself-validsourceofourknowledgeofabsolutereality(brahman).Inrelationtothegainofthisknowledge,allwaysofknowingweresubordinatetosruti.InimportantcontrasttoVivekananda’sargumentsthatthedeclarationsofsrutineededfurtherverificationtobecomeconclusivewasSankara’scontentionthatliberation(moksa)istheimmediateresultofunderstandingthewordsofthesruti.Foraqualifiedaspirant,nothingbeyondaproperinvestigationofthemeaningofthosesentencesinthesrutirevealingbrahmanisrequired(Rambachan,1994,p.3).

RambachanarguesthatwhereasVivekanandawaswithinhisrightstointerpretAdvaita

differentlyfromSankaracharya,italsomustberecognizedthatbecauseofhisunique

circumstancesitisVivekananda’sversionthathasbecomethemostwidelyaccepted

71Sankaracharyahimselfdidnotescapetheallegationsofeclecticism,anissuethatisinvestigatedinRichardKing’sEarlyAdvaitaVedantaandBuddhism(1995)wherehearticulateshowSankaracharyamayhave‘borrowed’someofhisphilosophicalargumentsfromMahayanaBuddhism.

199

interpretation.This,inturn,hasledtotherepackagingofHindutraditionsin

contemporarytimes:

Vivekananda’sinfluenceissopervasivethatitisadifficulttasktoidentifyandextricatetheindividualelementsthathecontributedtothecontemporaryunderstandingofHinduism.Notonlydidhelargelyformulatethisinterpretation,buthealsogaveitthelanguageinwhichitisarticulated.ThereisverylittleinmodernHindu,particularlyVedanta,apologeticwritingthatdoesnotcarrytheclearimprintofVivekananda’sinfluence.ThefactthatVivekanandawasarepresentativeofthesystemofAdvaitadidnotweakentheimpressionthathemadeonthewholeofHinduism.BecauseAdvaita,throughVivekananda,wasthefirstHindusystemtobesoelaboratelypresentedtotheWest,itscomprehensionhasconsiderablyshapedtheapproachtoHinduisminIndiaandabroad.ThiswasfosteredbyVivekananda’svisionandpresentationofAdvaitaasthenaturalculminationofHindureligiousthought.FromhisbasisofAdvaita,hegeneralizedinhislecturesandwritingsaboutthenatureandfeaturesofHinduismasawhole.Inhisowntime,hewasperceivedasthespokespersonandchampionofHinduism,notofanyspecifictraditionwithinit(Rambachan,1994,p.7).Rambachan’sstudyallowsustoseehowVivekanandawasabletocreate,outof

existingphilosophy,aversionof‘Hinduism’thatwassufficientlyfamiliartomakeit

palatabletoIndians,butyet,universalinawaywhichalsomadeitappealingtoWestern

audiences.Thus,Rambachanconcludes:

WhilehedidnotrejecttheurgentnecessityforchangeandinnovationinHinduism,Vivekanandasubtlyemphasizedthatwhathedesiredwas“growth”and“expansion”ratherthan“reformation.”Describinghimselfasanonbelieverinreform,hedefinedthereformistmethodasoneof“destruction”whereashiswasanattemptat“construction”.ThisdelicateandastutedistinctionenabledVivekanandatobecriticaloftheHindutraditionwhileneveralienatinghimselffromit.HestruckaveryfineandoriginalbalancebetweenanaggressivedefenseofHinduismandavociferouscryfortransformation.ThisfactprovidesthemostimportantcluetounderstandingVivekananda’spopularityandthenatureofthereinterpretationthatheformulated(1994,p.128).

Thisgivesusanindicationofwhy,ontheonehand,Vivekanandawasaverseto

acknowledging(atleastinpublic)thathewasreinterpretingmanyHinduideastomake

wayformodernpoliticalandphilosophicaltrends;hewantedtoavoidbeinglabelledas

areformer.Ontheotherhand,sincehewascallingforvastsocialreform,reformthat

wouldnecessarilyimpactancientreligiousideals,hecouldnoteasilybecategorizedasa

200

traditionalisteither.Ratherhebelieved,andheconvincedhisfollowersofthesame,

thathehadfoundthecorrectwaytointerpretancientIndianphilosophies.

Interpretationswhichwouldallowformanysocialchangessincetheyhighlighted

Advaiticmonisticidealsthathepresentedasuniversaltruths.Universaltruths,whichin

turn,wouldresonatewiththeneedsofmodernIndiaasitstruggledtobecomeanation.

AnothertacticthatVivekanandausedtomakehispointthatAdvaitawasthe

answerforallof‘Hinduism’s’apparentailmentswastohighlighttheattentionthatwas

beingpaidbyboth,reformersandtraditionalists,WesternersandOrientalists,onthe

issueofidolworship.Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,thiswasatopicthat

Vivekanandacouldnotaffordtoignore.However,theargumentsthatVivekananda

madeinIndiadifferedfromthepositionthetookintheWest.Thiswasnecessary

becauseheunderstoodthatthisideaofidolworshiphadadifferentconnotationonthe

Indiansubcontinent.Assuch,onceagainwearefacedwiththedilemmaoftranslation

andtheadoptionofterminologythatwasforeigntonativeideas.AccordingtoGeoffrey

Oddie,oneofthereasonswhy“idolworship”or“idolatry”wasperceivedsonegatively

wasbecauseoftheinfluenceofmissionarieswhocametoIndiainthe18thand19th

century.Ofcourse,thesemissionariesthemselveshadbeenimpactedbytheirown

religioushistory:

TheinfluencesaffectingmissionaryattitudesandresponsestothisissuegobacktothetimeofOldTestamentprophets,toatleastasearlyastheprophetJeremiahintheseventhcenturyBCE.Asoneofthemissionariesdeclared,‘theBibleeverywherecondemnsthepractice,bypreceptandexample,byprohibitionsandthreatenings’.Idols,wrotetheprophetJeremiah,‘arebothstupidandfoolish;theinstructionofidolsisbutwood…Theyaretheworkofthecraftsmanandofthehandsofthegoldsmith…ButtheLordisthetrueGod;heisthelivingGodandtheeverlastingKing’.Similarly,intheNewTestamentPaul,whenspeakingtotheAthenians,declaredthat‘weoughtnottothinkthattheDeityislikegold,orsilver,orstone,arepresentationbytheartandimaginationofman’.ThemainobjectionstoidolatryasexpressedintheseandotherpassagesofScripturewerethatitwas‘stupid’orirrational;itinvolvedtheneglectoftheworshipof‘theonetruegod’,andwasconducivetopolytheism;andthird,it

201

involvedworshippingthecreatedthinginsteadoftheCreator,apracticewhichledtoeverykindofcorruptionofreligionandmorals(Oddie,2006,pp.24-25,emphasisinoriginal).

Oddiecontendsthatwhatmadethisrepulsionforidolsevenmoreemphaticamongst

theProtestantmissionariesinIndiawas“thefactthatthispracticeandotherrituals

remindedthemofmuchofwhattheyhadsovigorouslyopposedandattemptedto

abolishduringtheReformation”(2006,p.26).Whatfurthercomplicatedthisattackon

idolworshipwasthatmanyHindureformersjoinedthemissionariesonthiscrusade.72

Thesereformersseemedtobuyintotheargumentsthatviewedtheseidolsascrude

toolsofworshipwhichwereholdingHindusbackfromusingreasonandscientific

knowledgetoaccessthedivine.AccordingtoDalmia:

WhenHinduismasawholewastobelaidtosiege,itwasthispracticewhichmostoftenandmostconsistentlycameunderattack,initiallybyChristianmissionaries,andlaterincreasinglybytheleadersofthenewertrendswithinHinduism,whichwehavecollectivelytermedreformists(1999,p.381).

However,idolworshipasunderstoodbyProtestantmissionaries,andtheHindu

reformerswhofollowedtheirlead,didnotnecessarilycoincidewithhowithadbeen

viewedbyHindusoverthecenturies.Indeed,Oddiepointsoutthatasearlyas1841J.

MurrayMitchell:

amissionaryoftheChurchofScotland,notedthecomplexityoftheissueandthefactthatmanyHindudevoteeshaddifferentviews.HealsorealizedthatincommonplaceHinduworship,therewasaspecialceremonyinvokingthespiritintotheimage(orremovingit)andhenceanestablisheddistinctionbetweenthespiritandtheimageitself(2006,p.26).Thetruthisthatthedebateaboutidolworshipwasonethatwascarriedoutfor

centuriesbetweenOrientalists,missionaries,reformersandtraditionalists.Brian

PenningtonexplorestheseargumentsindetailinWasHinduismInvented?Britons,

72Forexample,bothRammohanRoyandDayanandSaraswatiwerevociferousintheirdisdainofidolworship.

202

IndiansandtheColonialConstructionofReligion(2005)wherehehighlightsboththe

missionaries’strategies,aswellashowHindureformersandtraditionalistsresponded

(byusingthepressastheirweaponofchoice)inthelate1700’sandearly1800’s.

TurningbacktoVivekananda,itisinterestingtonotehowhealsotriedtonegotiate

betweentheseopposingviewpointswithoutcompletelyalienatinghimselffromhis

Ramakrishnabrethren.Indeed,inadeftmove,hecriticizedreformersforlookingdown

onidolworshippersbyusingRamakrishnaasanexampleofanidolworshipperwho

hadattainedgreatspiritualheights:

IfsuchRamakrishnaParamahamsasareproducedbyidol-worship,whatwillyouhave–thereformer’screedoranynumberofidols?Iwantananswer.TakeathousandidolsmoreifyoucanproduceRamakrishnaParamahamsasthroughidol-worship,andmayGodspeedyou!Producesuchnoblenaturesbyanymeansyoucan.Yetidolatryiscondemned!Why?(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.218).

Onenaturallypresumes,afterreadingthisthatVivekanandawas,infact,upholding

idolatryandnotcondemningit,aseeminglysurprisingmoveforhim.Especiallysince,

aswesawearlier,hehadspokenoutagainstidolworshipatvarioustimes,particularly

inhispersonalcorrespondences.ArewetosurmisethatVivekanandawasahypocrite

whobelievedhisguruwaswrongbutwasloathetosaysoinpublic?Thetruthisthat

Vivekanandaalsoargued,onmanyotheroccasions,thathisguruwasaVedanticscholar

whohadtaughthimeverythingheknew.Thathewasinfacta‘ParliamentofReligions’

inandofhimself:

Ay,longbeforeideasofuniversalreligionandbrotherlyfeelingbetweendifferentsectsweremootedanddiscussedinanycountryintheworld,hereinsightofthiscity[Calcutta],hadbeenlivingamanwhosewholelifewasaParliamentofReligionsasitshouldbe(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.315).

SohowdidVivekanandareconciletheidolworshippingRamakrishnawiththeAdvaitic

scholarthatheclaimedheactuallywas?AsfarasVivekanandawasconcernedNirguna

Brahmanwastheultimategoal.However,herecognizedthatRamakrishnabelievedthat

203

thiswasadifficultpathformanyandassuchhadshownhisdevoteesapathtoNirguna

BrahmanbyusingSagunaBrahmanasasteppingstone:

Ithasbecomeatritesayingthatidolatryiswrong,andeverymanswallowsitatthepresenttimewithoutquestioning.Ioncethoughtso,andtopaythepenaltyofthatIhadtolearnmylessonsittingatthefeetofamanwhorealizedeverythingthroughidols;IalludetoRamakrishnaParamahamsa(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.218).

However,thisdoesnotimplythatVivekanandabelievedthatidolworshipwasthebest

way,butrather,thatheacknowledgedthatoftentimesthiswasthewaythatwasmost

amenabletothemasses:

Thehighestidealinourscripturesistheimpersonal,andwouldtoGodeveryoneofusherewerehighenoughtorealizethatimpersonalideal;but,asthatcannotbe,itisabsolutelynecessaryforthevastmajorityofhumanbeingstohaveapersonalideal(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.315).

Thus,VivekanandaarguedthatRamakrishnahadalltheknowledgeoftheVedasbut

chosetohelpthosewhocouldnotgraspthehighertruthsbydonningthegarbofa

bhaktayogi.Andwhatabhakthewas!Accordingly,Vivekanandatoldhislistenersthatif

theythoughttheywerecapableoftheoneminded,utterlydevotedbhaktithat

Ramakrishnademonstratedthenthatwasacceptable.However,hearguedthat

Ramakrishna’swaywasextremelydifficult.ParticularlysinceVivekanandawascertain

thatthedualistpathwasameanstoanend,andthatendwastheultimatetruthof

NirgunaBrahman.Forothers,bhaktiwasatreacherouspathsinceitmadethemlook

weak,bothintheeyesoftheircountrymen,aswellasintheeyesoftheworld.

Furthermore,unlikehisguru,Vivekanandadidnotbelievethatthispathwassuitable

fortheemergingIndiannationwhoneededtoprovethattheyhad“musclesofironand

nervesofsteel”.OnlyVedantacoulddisplaythatkindofstrength.

WhatVivekanandadidextremelywellherewastoexploitthedividethatalready

existedbetweenthereformers,andtheorthodox,toestablishthatitwasonlywiththe

204

aidofAdvaiticidealsthatthisgulfcouldbebridged.Attimes,itseemsasifhewas

endorsingthevaluesystemsoftheorthodox.Andindeed,atsomelevelhewas,sincehe

wasarguingthattheymaybeantiquatedintheirwaysbut,inspiteofthat,theyhad

remainedloyaltotheirtraditionalvaluesandhadnot‘soldout’totheWesterners.Upon

closerscrutinyhowever,itsoonbecomesevidentthatwhileVivekanandamayhave

beenspeakinginfavouroftheorthodox,hewasalsoawarethattheseorthodoxideas

requiredopenreform,areformthathebelievedwouldbebestprovidedbyAdvaita

ideals:

TherearetwogreatobstaclesonourpathinIndia,theScyllaofoldorthodoxyandtheCharybdisofmodernEuropeancivilization.Ofthesetwo,Ivotefortheoldorthodoxy,andnotfortheEuropeanizedsystem;fortheoldorthodoxmanmaybeignorant,hemaybecrude,butheisaman,hehasafaith,hehasstrength,hestandsonhisownfeet;whiletheEuropeanizedmanhasnobackbone,heisamassofheterogeneousideaspickedupatrandomfromeverysource–andtheseideasareunassimilated,undigested,unharmonized.…Hisschemesofreforms,hisvehementvituperationsagainsttheevilsofcertainsocialcustoms,have,asthemainspring,someEuropeanpatronage.Whyaresomeofourcustomscalledevils?BecausetheEuropeanssayso.Thatisaboutthereasonhegives.Iwouldnotsubmittothat.Standanddieinyourownstrength(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.151).Afewpointsneedtobehighlightedinthesedeclarationsofhis.First,itis

immediatelyclearthathebelievedthatthereformersweresimplypuppetsoftheWest.

Second,itisobviousthathewasplayingtohisaudienceatRamnad,aprovincewhose

ruler,theRajaofRamnad,wasoneofVivekananda’smainbenefactorsandwho

VivekanandahimselfacknowledgedasanorthodoxHindu.Thatbeingsaidhowever,

whatisthemostinterestingaspectofthisspeechisthatwhereasVivekanandaseemed

toberailingagainstthereformersandspeakingindefenceoftheorthodox,hewasin

factstatingthatboththesegroupswere‘greatobstacles’forIndia.Apointthat

somehowgetssweptawayinthistiradeagainstreformersandEuropeans,butwhichhe

obviouslybelievedwastrue.Especiallysinceheusedthisanalogy,‘Scyllaand

205

Charybdis’,repeatedlyinvariousspeechesafterhisreturn.Indeed,itdoesnottakelong

todiscoverthatwhilstVivekanandadidnotwanttocompletelyantagonizethe

orthodox,oreradicateidolworship,hedidwanttoplacetheseideaswithinahierarchy,

ahierarchywheretheirpracticeswereonalowerrungthantheidealsofAdvaita

Vedanta.WhatisironicisthathechosetouseanalogiesthatWesternershadpreviously

usedinaderogatorymannerforEasterntraditions.Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,

heusedlanguagewhichsuggestedthattheHinduswhowereonthepathofbhaktiwere

notwrong,butsimplyatalowerlevelofevolution,whencomparedtothosewhohad

relinquishedtheirattachmentstoidols,andtheritualsassociatedwiththem:

Soweshouldnotspeakillofamanwhoworshipsidols.Heisinthatstageofgrowth,andtherefore,musthavethem;wisemenshouldtrytohelpforwardsuchmenandgetthemtodobetter(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.363).WhatthesestatementsdemonstrateisthatwhereasVivekanandatriedtoshow

hiscompassionandunderstandingforthoseonotherpaths,hewasnotpreparedtodo

soattheexpenseofacknowledgingtheirequalworth.73Rather,hewasonlywillingto

grantthemaplaceonthepath,aspotthatwasnowherenearwhereheplacedthe

practiceofAdvaita.Somuchso,thatVivekanandaultimatelyshrunkallthevarious

darsanasintothethreeVedanticidealsofdualism,qualifieddualismandmonism;only

tofinallydeclarethatAdvaitawasthelogicalrestingplaceforallphilosophicalideas:

wefindtheyareagradualunfoldingofthegrandprincipleswhosemusicbeginningfarbackinthesoftlownotes,endsinthetriumphantblastoftheAdvaita,soalsointhesethreesystemswefindthegradualworkingupofthehumanmindtowardshigherandhigheridealstilleverythingismergedinthatwonderfulunitywhichisreachedintheAdvaitasystem(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.396-397).

73Inthefollowingchapter,wewillanalyzehowthisso-called‘inclusive’languagecanbebothproblematicanddivisive.

206

Themostinterestingaspectoftheseargumentsisthathedidnotbelievethatthis

changecouldbeachievedwithoutreform!Thequestionthatonemustasknow

however,iswhatwerethemotivesthatfuelledhiscallforreform?Whatwashisagenda

ashehelpedcreatethishierarchybetweenthedifferentdarsanasandtraditions?One

getsthedistinctimpressionthatVivekanandahadavisionforIndiathatcrystallized

afterhegarneredsomuchattentionfromhiscountrymen,duetohissuccessinthe

West.Nodoubt,hewantedtousehisinfluenceinawaythatwouldpromotethe

wellbeingofhishomeland.Andwhatbetterwaythantoemphasizetherolethat

‘religion’ingeneral,andAdvaitaVedantainparticular,couldplayinbuildingupthe

backboneofthenation.Hissuccessiswhatmadehimoneofthemajorplayersin

establishingnationalunity,abona-fidepoliticalactivist,aroleheneveropenlyclaimed

forhimself.

SwamiVivekananda:Nationbuilder?

ThemainthrustofmyresearchhasbeentoidentifyhowVivekananda

respondedtotheintellectual‘continentalcollision’betweentheWestandIndia.He

manipulateddefinitionsandinterpretations,whichincludedlargeconceptssuchas

‘religion’and‘Hinduism’aswellaslesserlabelssuchas‘reformer’and‘revivalist’.

AnothercrucialconceptthatVivekanandaengagedwith,andwhichwillbenecessary

forustoexaminetounderstandhisroleinIndiatodayis‘nationalism’.Nationalismis

notusuallyconflatedwith‘religion’intheWest.However,thesamecannotbesaidfor

India.Vivekanandawasoneofthearchitectswhohelpedrenegotiatehowthisidea

couldbeusedtohelpcreatetheIndiannationstate.WehaveseenthatVivekananda

wasconvincedthathisversionof‘Hinduism’wasauthentic,andwieldeditlikea

powerfultool,toremindHindusthattheywerefullyequippedtoviewtheworldas

207

rationallyastheWesternworldclaimedtoviewtheirown.AccordingtoVivekananda,it

wasAdvaitaVedantathatallowedforallthenuancesthatexistedwithinHindu

traditions,whilstatthesametimeofferingatrajectoryalongwhichHinduscouldaspire

toperfection.Indeed,justlikethebirdsinthetree,withwhichwestartedthischapter,

soalsoVivekanandasawallHindus(andBuddhistsandJainsandSikhs!)74asworking

theirwayupwardsthroughthehierarchyofthesystemhehadhelpedrepackage.He

wasconvincedthattheywouldfinallyrealizethatAdvaitawastheultimateresting

placeforallHindus,nayallreligions.So,howdidheusetheseconvictionstopromote

nationalunity?

OneoftheaspectsofWesternculturethatseemedtoresonatewithVivekananda

wastheapparentcohesivenessoftheirsociety.Hearguedthateachnationhadsome

commontraitsthatboundthemtogethertherebycreatingasenseof‘oneness’.This

instilledasenseofprideandhelpedthemidentifyascitizensofaparticularnation:

eachnationhasitsownpeculiarityandindividualitywithwhichitisborn.Eachrepresents,asitwere,onepeculiarnoteinthisharmonyofnations,andthisisitsverylife,itsvitality.Initisthebackbone,thefoundation,andthebed-rockofthenationallife(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.148).

Thisrealization,thatasimilarfeelingofunityneededtobeencouragedamongstIndians

butwhich,couldnoteasilybeaccomplishedbyusingthesamelanguageofnationality

commonlyusedintheWest,isanexcellentexampleofhow‘continentalcollision’

worked.IntheWest,particularlysincetheEnlightenment,ideasof‘race’,‘national

historyand‘nationallanguage’boundpeopletogether.However,thisdidnottranslate

easilyinIndiawherecolonization,coupledwithmultiplenativeprincipalities,hadnot

bredawidespreadsenseofnation.Addtothisthefactthatdifferentregionsspoke

74IhavealreadydemonstratedhowVivekanandaconflatedthesetraditionsinthepreviouschapter.Additionally,IwilladdresshowthiseffectsIndiatodayinthenextchapter.

208

vastlydifferentlanguagesanditisnotdifficulttoseesomeofthehurdlesIndian

nationalistsencountered.Vivekananda,andotherIndianleaderslikehim,realizedthat

whereastheyneededtofindawaytouniteIndians,theycouldnotjustaseasily

replicatetheWesternmodel.Accordingly,Vivekanandadeclared:

WeseehowinAsia,andespeciallyinIndia,racedifficulties,linguisticdifficulties,socialdifficulties,nationaldifficulties,allmeltawaybeforethisunifyingpowerofreligion.WeknowthattotheIndianmindthereisnothinghigherthanreligiousideals,thatthisisthekeynoteofIndianlife,andwecanonlyworkinthelineofleastresistance.Itisnotonlytruethattheidealofreligionisthehighestideal;inthecaseofIndiaitistheonlypossiblemeansofwork;workinanyotherline,withoutfirststrengtheningthis,wouldbedisastrous.ThereforethefirstplankinthemakingofafutureIndia,thefirststepthatistobehewnoutofthatrockofages,isthisunificationofreligion(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.287).

Thisconsciousdecision,andintentionaladaptation,isdescribedmetaphoricallybyhow

landmassesaccommodatecollisionsatgeographicalsuturezones.Vivekananda

representsonesuchsuturezonewherebyhehelpedrepackagetheconceptofnational

unitytosuit,whatheperceivedtobe,India’sneeds.Hebelievedhewasmaintaining

someoftheintegrityoftheIndianideologicallandmasswhilstsimultaneously

integratinglayersofWesternprinciples.

Ofcourse,thedownsideofsuchacollisionisthatsomeintegralaspectsarelost

frombothcultures,lossesthatoftentimesarenotidentifieduntilitismuchtoolate.This

certainlywasthecasewiththenationalistdiscourseinIndiabecausewhereasit

mobilizedthemasses,italsoresultedinthelossofdiversity;alossthatGuha,andother

subalternscholars,strivetohighlight.AsThaparpointsout(seeChapter3),according

tothisgroupofscholars,theIndianelitewerenotrepresentativeofthenation.

Consequently,Guhaargues,“thehistoriographyofIndiannationalismhasforalong

timebeendominatedbyelitism–colonialistelitismandbourgeois-nationalistelitism”

(Guha,1997,p.xiv).Furthermore,hecontends:

209

Whatisclearlyleftoutofthisun-historical(elitist)historiographyisthepolitics

ofthepeople.ForparalleltothedomainofelitepoliticsthereexistedthroughoutthecolonialperiodanotherdomainofIndianpoliticsinwhichtheprincipalactorswerenotthedominantgroupsoftheindigenoussocietyorthecolonialauthoritiesbutthesubalternclassesandgroupsconstitutingthemassofthelabouringpopulationandintermediatestrataintownandcountry–thatis,thepeople.Thiswasanautonomousdomain,foritneitheroriginatedfromelitepoliticsnordiditsexistencedependonthelatter.Theco-existenceofthesetwodomainsorstreams,whichcanbesensedbyintuitionandprovedbydemonstrationaswell,wastheindexofanimportanthistoricaltruth,thatis,thefailureoftheIndiabourgeoisietospeakforthenation.Therewerevastareasinthelifeandconsciousnessofthepeoplewhichwereneverintegratedintotheirhegemony(Guha,1997,pp.xiv-xv,emphasisinoriginal).

WhatGuhaseemstobehighlightinghereisthatthenationalistprojectisinherently

flawedandassuch,itmustbeunderstoodasonlyonewaytosurveythehistoryof

India,bothduringthecolonialperiodaswellasincontemporaryIndia.Consequently,as

weproceedtoanalysehowVivekanandaimpactedthecreationoftheIndiannation,itis

equallyimportantforustotakenoteofthepremisefromwhichsubalternists,likeGuha,

operate.WemustnotforgetthatwhereasVivekanandadidbecomeoneofthedominant

voicesinIndia,thisdoesnotmeanthathiswasthevoiceofthemasses.Rather,hisvoice

wasoneofthefewthatwereheardamongstthemanywhospoke.

So,whichkindofnationalismdidVivekanandapromoteandhowdid‘religion’

cometoplaysuchawidelyacceptedroleinitsdefinition?EliteHinduvoiceslike

VivekanandadidnotsimplytrytomimicEuropeannationalhistoricalideas;therewas

anintegraldifference.InNationalistThoughtandtheColonialWorld(2008),Partha

ChatterjeediscussesthedifferencesbetweenEasternandWesternnationalism.

ChatterjeecitesthepoliticalphilosopherJohnPlamenatzwhostates:

nationalismis‘primarilyaculturalphenomenon’althoughitoftentakesa‘politicalform’.Onetypeis‘western’,havingemergedprimarilyinWesternEurope,andtheother‘eastern’tobefoundinEasternEurope,inAsiaandAfrica,andalsoinLatinAmerica.Bothtypesdependupontheacceptanceofacommonsetofstandardsbywhichthestateofdevelopmentofaparticularnationalcultureismeasured(2008,p.1).

210

However,whereasPlamenatzandChatterjeebothrecognizethatthereweresimilarities

betweenthetwokindsofnationalisms,theyalsoclearlyarticulatethedifferencesthat

setthemapart.Inparticular,theyhighlightthattherewasanobviousdisparitybetween

importingtheconceptofnationalismintootherWesternnations,thatwerestill

developingideasofcitizenship,versusEasternstatesthathadbeencolonized.This

resultedindistinct‘nationalisms’thattheyargueneedtobedefinedandunderstoodas

separateentitiesintheirownright:

Inthefirsttype[Western]…althoughthereisafeelingthatthenationisatadisadvantagewithrespecttoothers,itisneverthelessalready‘culturallyequipped’tomaketheattempttoremovethosedeficiencies.ThusalthoughthenewglobalstandardofprogressmayhavebeensetfortherestoftheworldbyFranceorBritain,theywerebaseduponasetofideas‘aboutman,moralsandsociety’which,intheirsocialandintellectualorigins,wereWestEuropeangenerally.BritainandFrancemayhavebeenthecultural,economicandpoliticalpacemakers,andmayhavebeenenviedoradmiredforthisreason,butsimultaneouswiththeprocessoftheiremergenceasworldleaders,therehademergeda‘comityofnations’inWesternEurope‘whichhadalreadylearnedtothinkofitselfasaheadofalltheothers’(Chatterjee,2008,p.1).Easternnationshowever,didnotfunctioninthesamewaysincethey,unlike

nationssuchasGermanyandItaly,didnothave“thenecessarylinguistic,educational

andprofessionalskillsthatweredeemednecessaryfora‘consciouslyprogressive

civilisation’(Chatterjee,2008,p.1).Instead,Easternnationalismwasinherently‘alien’

tothenativecultures,apointthatisnotlostonPlamenatzandishighlightedby

Chatterjee.Themostinterestingobservationisnotthatthese‘nationalisms’are

different,butthatthesedifferenceswereaccompaniedbya:

fundamentalawarenessthatthosestandardshavecomefromanalienculture,andthattheinheritedcultureofthenationdidnotprovidethenecessaryadaptiveleveragetoenableittoreachthosestandardsofprogress.The‘Eastern’typeofnationalism,consequently,hasbeenaccompaniedbyaneffortto‘re-equip’thenationculturally,totransformit.Butitcouldnotdososimplybyimitatingthealienculture,forthenthenationwouldloseitsdistinctiveidentity.Thesearchthereforewasforaregenerationofthenationalculture,adaptedtotherequirementsofprogress,butretainingatthesametimeitsdistinctiveness(Chatterjee,2008,p.2).

211

Accordingly,Chatterjeegoesontoarguethat“thenationis‘thoughtout’,‘created’”

(2008,p.19),anargumentthatholdstrueforhowIndiannationalists‘built’theIndian

nationbyborrowingsomeWesternideasbutnotwithoutchallengingandquestioning

manyofitsclaims(2008,pp.30-41).Indeed,heevengoesasfarastoassertthat

nationalisttextsmustquestioncolonialclaimsbecauseiftheydonot,theycannotand

shouldnot,beconsiderednationalistsincetheylosetheirclaimtotheindividualitythat

makesthemstandapartfromothernations:

Thusnationalisttextswillquestiontheveracityofcolonialistknowledge,disputeitsarguments,pointoutcontradictions,rejectitsmoralclaims.Evenwhenitadopts,aswewillseeitdoes,themodesofthoughtcharacteristicofrationalknowledgeinthepost-Enlightenmentage,itcannotadoptthemintheirentirety,forthenitwouldnotconstituteitselfasanationalistdiscourse(Chatterjee,2008,pp.41-42,emphasisinoriginal).ThisanalysisresonateswiththefactthatIndiannationalistsinthenineteenth

century,likeVivekananda,werekeenlyawarethattheyhadtofindawaytouniteIndia,

whilstusingtoolsthatwerenotcommonlyassociatedwithnationalismintheWest.

Thus,whereastheytookthebasicWesternideaofnationalismtheyalsoadapteditto

accommodatetheproclivitiesofIndiansociety,whichwastraditionallyoriented.

Indeed,vanderVeerstatesthathedisagreeswiththepremiseofSaid’sargumentsin

Orientalismsincescholarsmustbe:

waryofgivingorientalismhegemonicforce,asEdwardSaidhasdoneinhisimportantbook.IdonotagreewithSaid’snotionthatcolonialismandorientalismcreatedtherealityinwhichIndianshadtolive.ThisnotionisinitselfanorientalistfallacythatdeniesIndiansagencyinconstructingtheirsocietyandsimplifiestheintricateinterplayofWesternandIndiandiscourses(1994(a),p.21).

Thisisavalidpoint,andonethatIhavebeentryingtoemphasizebydemonstrating

howVivekanandawasnotsimplyimitatingtheWestbut,infact,wasparticipatinginan

Indiandialogue,inanefforttorespondtotheneedsofthisnewlydevelopingnation.

Evidently,thisdialogueledtheIndianeliteleaderstosurmisethattheywouldhaveto

212

buildtheirnationalistdreamsonareligiousfoundation.75Indeed,vanderVeerechoes

someofAsad’sarguments(seeChapter2)whenherecognizesthat,“[e]xceptforthose

oftheMarxistleft,Indiandreamsofthenationalwaystakereligionasoneofthemain

aspectsofnationalidentity”(1994(a),p.23).

Similarly,VivekanandaemphasizedthespiritualnatureofIndiaandstressedthe

rolethat‘religion’wouldplayinunitingIndians.Hemadethispointrepeatedlywhenhe

returnedtoIndia:

IhavebeeninthecountriesoftheWest–havetravelledthroughmanylandsofmanyraces;andeachraceandeachnationappearstometohaveaparticularideal–aprominentidealrunningthroughitswholelife;andthisidealisthebackboneofthenationallife.Notpoliticsnormilitarypower,notcommercialsupremacynormechanicalgeniusfurnishesIndiawiththatbackbone,butreligion;andreligionisallthatwehaveandmeantohave(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.137).

SofirmlydidVivekanandabelievethat‘religion’wasthe‘backbone’ofnationallifein

India,thathereiteratedthisateveryopportunity,andappropriatedideasfromthe

Manusmrtitomakehispoint:

Suchisthelawlaiddownbyourgreatandpeerlesslegislator,thedivineManu.Thisistrue.Standonyourownfeet,andassimilatewhenyoucan;learnfromeverynation,takewhatisofusetoyou.ButrememberthatasHinduseverythingelsemustbesubordinatedtoourownnationalideals.Eachmanhasamissioninlife,whichistheresultofallhisinfinitepastKarma.Eachofyouwasbornwithasplendidheritage,whichisthewholeoftheinfinitepastlifeofyourgloriousnation.Millionsofyourancestorsarewatching,asitwere,everyactionofyours,sobealert.AndwhatisthemissionwithwhicheveryHinduchildisborn?HaveyounotreadtheprouddeclarationofManuregardingtheBrahminwherehesaysthatthebirthoftheBrahminis“fortheprotectionofthetreasuryofreligion”?IshouldsaythatthatisthemissionnotonlyoftheBrahmin,butofeverychild,whetherboyorgirl,whoisborninthisblessedland“fortheprotectionofthetreasuryofreligion”.Andeveryotherprobleminlifemustbesubordinatedtothatoneprincipaltheme(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.152,emphasisinoriginal).

75ItisimportanttorecognizethatVivekanandawasnotattemptingtocreateatheocracy;adistinctionthatissometimeslostoncertainHinduradicalelements,whichwillbediscussedasweproceedintothefinalchapter.

213

Thatbeingsaidhowever,Vivekanandawasalsoquiteawarethat‘Hinduism’was

generallyunderstood,asavastlydiverse,oftencontradictoryentity,particularlyasit

hadbeendescribedbyWesternersandOrientalistsforoveracentury.Assuch,heknew

thatitwouldbechallengingforthevarioussectstofindcommonground.Consequently,

hisrepresentationofHindutraditionssuggestedthattherewasarealneedtohighlight

thecommonalityamongstallthatrichdiversity.This,inturn,allowedhimtochampion

theUpanishadicphilosophythatformsthecoreofAdvaitaVedanta;aphilosophythat

hebelievedemphasizeduniversal‘religious’truthsandexplainswhyhewasso

successful:

Itisaman-makingreligionthatwewant.Itisman-makingtheoriesthatwewant.Itisman-makingeducationallroundthatwewant.Andhereisthetestoftruth–anythingthatmakesyouweakphysically,intellectually,andspiritually,rejectaspoison;thereisnolifeinit,itcannotbetrue.…Thesemysticisms,inspiteofsomegrainsoftruthinthem,aregenerallyweakening.Believeme,Ihavealifelongexperienceofit,andtheoneconclusionthatIdrawisthatitisweakening.IhavetravelledalloverIndia,searchedalmosteverycavehere,andlivedintheHimalayas.Iknowpeoplewholivedtherealltheirlives.Ilovemynation,Icannotseeyoudegraded,weakenedanymorethanyouarenow.ThereforeIamboundforyoursakeandfortruth’ssaketocry,“Hold!”andtoraisemyvoiceagainstthisdegradationofmyrace.Giveuptheseweakeningmysticismsandbestrong.GobacktoyourUpanishads–theshining,thestrengthening,thebrightphilosophy–andpartfromallthesemysteriousthings,alltheseweakeningthings.…ThetruthsoftheUpanishadsarebeforeyou.Takethemup,liveuptothem,andthesalvationofIndiawillbeathand(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.224-225).

WhatmadeVivekananda’sargumentsparticularlyeffectivewasthathedidnotdeny

thatdifferencesexistedinhowhisIndianbrethrenfollowedtheirtraditions.He

acknowledgedthembynameandrepeatedlydemonstratedthathewasawareofthe

varioussectsandphilosophiesthatformedthediverseIndianreligiouslandscape.

Nevertheless,hebelievedthatthesedifferencesneededtobesubordinatedtothe

greaterneedoftheunificationofthenation:

thefirstplankinthemakingofafutureIndia,thefirststepthatistobehewnoutofthatrockofages,isthisunificationofreligion.Allofushavetobetaughtthat

214

weHindus–dualists,qualifiedmonists,ormonists,Shaivas,Vaishnavas,orPashupatas–towhateverdenominationwemaybelong,havecertaincommonideasbehindus,andthatthetimehascomewhenforthewell-beingofourselves,forthewell-beingofourrace,wemustgiveupallourlittlequarrelsanddifferences(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.287-288).

Ofcourse,Vivekanandahadthesolution,awaytomakeallthesesocalled‘minor’

differencesfitintothebiggerpicture;abiggerpicturethatwasnecessaryifIndiawasto

becomeaunitednation:

Itiseasytofindoutthewayofreconciliationthatwillnothurtthedualistorthequalifiedmonist.ThereisnotonesysteminIndiawhichdoesnotholdthedoctrinethatGodiswithin,thatDivinityresideswithinallthings.EveryoneofourVedanticsystemsadmitsthatallpurityandperfectionandstrengthareinthesoulalready.Accordingtosome,thisperfectionsometimesbecomes,asitwere,contracted,andatothertimesitbecomesexpandedagain.Yetitisthere.AccordingtotheAdvaita,itneithercontractsnorexpands,butbecomeshiddenanduncoverednowandagain.Prettymuchthesamethingineffect.Theonemaybeamorelogicalstatementthantheother,butastotheresult,thepracticalconclusions,bothareaboutthesame;andthisistheonecentralideawhichtheworldstandsinneedof,andnowhereisthewantmorefeltthaninthis,ourownmotherland(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.191).Itwasinthecreationofthishierarchy,wherebyheinsistedthatAdvaitawasthe

crowningjewelofHindutraditions,thatVivekanandalefthismostsignificantmark.

Vivekanandawasoneofthearchitectsofamonolithic‘Hinduism’thatencompassedall

ofIndia’snativereligiousvagariesunderasinglebanner.Andoneoftheprimary

reasonshedidthiswastoinspireasenseofunitythathefoundlackingamongsthis

Indianbrethren.WhatisironicaboutthisisthatVivekanandarepeatedlyclaimedthat

hewasnotinterestedinbecominginvolvedinnationalmovements.Somuchso,thatin

oneofthelettershewrotetohisbrotherdiscipleAlasinga,evenbeforehereturned

fromhisfirstvisittotheWest,hevehementlydeniedbeinginvolvedinanythingthat

couldbeconsideredpolitical:

OnethingIfindinthebooksofmyspeechesandsayingspublishedinCalcutta.Someofthemareprintedinsuchawayastosavourofpoliticalviews;whereasIamnopoliticianorpoliticalagitator.IcareonlyfortheSpirit–whenthatisrighteverythingwillberightedbyitself…SoyoumustwarntheCalcuttapeoplethat

215

nopoliticalsignificancebeeverattachedfalselytoanyofmywritingsorsayings.Whatnonsense!…IheardthatRev.KaliCharanBanerjiinalecturetoChristianmissionariessaidthatIwasapoliticaldelegate(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.46).

Despitehisdisclaimers,therolethatAdvaitaplayed,withVivekananda’sassistance,in

unitingIndiacannotbeignoredordenied.Onesimplyhastoreadthespeechesgivenby

leaderssuchasJawaharlalNehruorSarvepalliRadhakrishnantounderstandhowtheir

interpretationofHindutraditionswasstronglyinfluencedbyVivekananda’s

presentationofAdvaiticphilosophy.Whatisofparticularinteresttoushowever,isthat

notonlydidthisVedanticideologyimpactthenationalistmovementbutthatthese

VedanticrepercussionscontinuetoberepresentedinhowcontemporaryHindusview

theirtraditionstoday.ByhighlightingVivekananda’stacticsforencouragingnational

unity,viaAdvaita,wecanunderstandhoweffectivehismethodswereandhow

necessaryithasbecomeforcontemporaryHindustounpacksomeoftheseideas.Itis

timetoreassessifthisversionof‘Hinduism’hasnotonlyoutliveditsusefulnessbut

indeed,inmanycases,hasbecomeadangerousworldviewwhichcanthreatenthevery

survivalofthediversitythatexistswithinHindutraditions.Adiversitythatmost

modernHinduswearasabadgeofhonour.Indeed,Hindusneedtoaskthemselvesif

Vivekananda’smethods,whichhavepermeatedthroughmostofmodernHindu

ideology,aretrulyconducivetohowHindusactuallypracticetheirtraditions.

Conclusion

InHindutva:ExploringtheIdeaofHinduNationalism(2003),JyotirmayaSharma

makesaninterestingclaimwherehearguesthatVivekanandawasoneofthe

precursors,totheHinduactivistV.D.Savarkar,whocreatedtheterm‘Hindutva’;a

conceptthathasbecomethebattlecryforagreatnumberofconservativeHindustoday:

216

SavarkarlegitimatelyclaimedpaternityfortheideaofHindutva;butHindutvacouldlayclaimtoanequallyformidablepatrimonyinthethoughtofDayananda,VivekanandaandAurobindo.WhatbindsthesefourthinkerstogetheristhesystematicmarshallingofaHinduidentityintheserviceofIndiannationalism(2003,p.4).

Sowhatdid‘Hindutva’meanaccordingtoSavarkarandhowdoesitrelatetowhat

Vivekanandawassayingaquarterofacenturybeforehim?Hindutva:WhatisaHindu?,

whichwaspublishedin1923underthepenname‘AMaratha’(sinceSavarkarwasstill

injailwhenhewroteit)iswhereSavarkaridentifiescertaintraitsthatconstitutethe

conceptHindutva.AccordingtoSavarkar,ashared‘religion’wasnotenoughto

determineacertain‘Hinduness’thatlinkedhisnativeIndianbrethren.InHindu

Nationalism:AReader(2007)ChristopheJaffrelothighlightsthemaincharacteristics

thatSavarkarviewedasessentialtoHindutva:

Savarkardefinesthenationprimarilyalongethniccategories.Forhim,theHindusdescendfromtheAryas,whosettledinIndiaatthedawnofhistoryandwhoalreadyformedanationatthattime.However,inSavarkar’swritings,ethnicbondsarenottheonlycriteriaofHindutva.Nationalidentityrestsforhimonthreepillars:geographicalunity,racialfeaturesandacommonculture.SavarkarminimizestheimportanceofreligioninhisdefinitionofaHindubyclaimingthatHinduismisonlyoneoftheattributesof‘Hinduness’.…ThethirdcriterionofHindutva–a‘commonculture’–reflectsforSavarkarthecrucialimportanceofrituals,socialrules,andlanguageinHinduism.SanskritiscitedbyhimasthecommonreferencepointforallIndianlanguagesandas‘languageparexcellence’.AnypoliticalprogrammebasedonHindunationalistideologyhasafterSavarkardemandedrecognitionofSanskritorHindi–thevernacularlanguageclosesttoit–asthenationalidiom(Jaffrelot,2007,p.86).

AsSharmasuggests,whenonecomparesVivekananda’sideaswithsomeofSavarkar’s

statements,therearecertainundeniablesimilarities.Forexample,inHindutvaSavarkar

declares:

ItmustnotbeforgottenthatwehaveallalongreferredtotheprogressoftheHindumovementasawholeandnottothatofanyparticularcreedorreligioussectionthereof–ofHindutvaandnotHinduismonly.Sanatanists,Satnamis,Sikhs,Aryas,Anaryas,MarathasandMadrasis,BrahminsandPanchamas–allsufferedasHindusandtriumphedasHindus.BothfriendsandfoescontributedequallytoenablethewordsHinduandHindusthantosupersedeallotherdesignationsofourlandandourpeople(Savarkar,1989,p.45).

217

ThisstatementsoundsremarkablylikeVivekananda,whenhedeclaredthatallthe

differencesbetweenthesectsmustbesubsumedunderAdvaiticphilosophy.

Vivekananda’sapproachseemsmorebenignbecause,whereasSavarkarwas

intentionallyidentifyingthosewhomustbeleftoutoftheHindutvamovement,

Vivekanandawasinsistingthatallphilosophicalandreligiousideascouldfindaplace

undertheAdvaiticumbrella.Thequestionwemustaskourselvesnowis;whatifsome

ofthesegroupsdonotacceptAdvaitaasavalidoption?Aretheytobeforcefully

included?Isthatfair?Isn’titequallyimportantforustorespecttheirneedtobe

different?Don’ttheyhaveequalrightsasHindus,ormoreimportantlyasIndians,ifthey

donotadheretoVedanticprinciples?WhilemostscholarsacknowledgeVivekananda’s

appropriationandadaptationofVedantatosuithisneeds,veryfewrecognizethathis

interpretations,whichhavebecomesowidespread,cannowactuallythreatenthe

integrityofthelandmassthathefoughtsohardtopreserve.Whereasmanyofhisideas

arevalidandcanstillserveapurpose,otherscanprovetobeextremelydetrimentalto

theunifiedIndiathathedreamtof.VivekanandawasinstrumentalingivingIndiansa

voicethattheydeserved.HemodifiedandadaptedlargeconceptstosuittheIndian

philosophicallandscape.HechallengedWesternlabelsandquestionedtheirvalidity

repeatedly.Theseareallessentialaspectsofhislegacy.However,healsocreateda

hierarchythatcanthreatentheIndianreligiousmodelthathasallowedIndiatobeone

oftheonlynationstohavesurvivedcolonizationwithitsreligiousidealsrelatively

intact.Althoughthetwobirdsinthetreeisawonderfulwaytolookatthequestfor

Brahman,letusnotforgetthattherearemanyothertreesintheforest,andthatthe

birdsinthosetreesmaybelearningdifferentlessons.

218

SwamiVivekananda:TheTwoNarendras

ThecurrentPrimeMinisterofIndia,NarendraModi,hastakentociting

VivekanandainanefforttodrawanexusbetweenVivekananda’sideologyandhisown.

Nodoubt,thereasonthatModiismakingsuchaconcentratedefforttowardsallying

himselftoVivekanandaisbecausethepopularimageofVivekanandaisoneofreligious

tolerance,inclusivityand‘manly’youthfulvigour.76Accordingly,Modi’srecent2014

electioncampaignnotonlyusedquotesfromVivekananda,butalsoimagerywhich

included,butwerenotlimitedto,life-sizepostersoftheSwamisidebysidewithModi,

bothbearingstatementsfromtheirrespectivepublicspeeches.Onejournalist

suggested,“ModihasreplacedMahatmaGandhi,theiconofnon-violence,with

Vivekananda,the19thcenturyHindurevivalistwhowasobsessedwithmakingIndiaa

‘manly’nation”(Mishra,2014).ThisploywasobviouslysuccessfulsinceModinotonly

wontheelection,buthasalsogonefrombeingamanwhowasrefusedavisatothe

UnitedStatesin2005,77tobeingwelcomedattheMadisonSquareGardeninNewYork,

bytheIndiandiasporaandaccordeda“RockStarReception”in2014(Sinha,2014).So

effectivehasModibeenincultivatingaconnectionbetweenhimselfandVivekananda

thatPresidentBarackObamagiftedhimararevolumeofspeechesfromtheParliament

ofReligionsin1893whenVivekanandashottofame.Anoteaccompanyingthebook

reads,“ThisgiftcelebratesSwamiVivekananda’svaluablecontributionasabridge

betweenIndiaandUSandhonorsourtwonations’sharedtraditionsofpluralismand

diversity”(HTCorrespondent,2014).KeepingthisrecentresurgenceofVivekanandain

76Iamawarethattheword‘inclusive’isacomplextermandIwillunpacksomeoftheissuesassociatedwithusingitinthefollowingsections.77ThiswasasaconsequenceofModi’sallegedinvolvementinthe2002Gujaratriots,wherehewasChiefMinisteratthetime,whichresultedintheunfortunatedeathsofnumerousMuslims.

219

Indianpoliticsinmind,ithasnowbecomeimperativetoquestionwhyModi,andthe

HindunationalistmovementinIndia,havebeenabletoappropriateVivekanandaand

histeachings.DoVivekananda’swordslendthemselvestoHindutvainterpretations?Is

thisHindunationalistimageofVivekananda’sunfounded?Or,ifinstead,asother

scholarshavealsointimated,78havetheseideasalwaysexistedinVivekananda’s

message,albeitshroudedintheidiomofinclusivity?AlthoughVivekanandahas

oftentimesbeenignored,ormarginalized,bypoliticalscientistswhenspeakingofthe

emergenceofIndiannationalisminthe18thandthe19thcentury,79recentstudieshave

beguntotakenoticeoftheroleheplayedinthecreationoftheHindunationalist

movement.Especiallysince,heisresurgingasakeyinspirationalfigureforproponents

ofHindutva,afactionthathasbecomeaforcetobereckonedwithin21stcenturyIndia.

And,asweshalldiscover,veryoftenitisVivekananda’sbrandof‘Hinduism’thatthe

followersofHindutvaarepromoting.

InkeepingwiththisrenewedfocusonVivekananda,popularjournalismhas

takentoreferringtoVivekanandaandModiasthe‘twoNarendras’(Bhattacharya,

2013).However,forthepurposesofthisstudy,Iammoreinterestedinfocusingonthe

Narendrawho,asSwamiVivekananda,totedideasofinclusivity,masculinityand

Vedantainthe19thand20thcentury,versustheNarendrawhohasbecometheSwami

mostcommonlyassociatedwithHindunationalisminthe21stcentury.Isthereanexus?

Dotheysharethesameideology?DoestheHindunationalistmovement,currentlyled

byModi,havegoodreasontoappropriatethisIndianhero?Andiftheydo,isittimefor

78Fore.g.,JyotirmayaSharma(2003),ShamitaBasu(2002)andGwilymBeckerlegge(2009).79Fore.g.ParthaChatterjeeignoresVivekanandainhisseminalstudy,NationalThought

andtheColonialWorldwhichwasoriginallypublishedin1986.Similarly,VivekanandaisabsentfromtheworkdonebyChristopheJaffrelotincluding,butnotlimitedto,hisrecenteditedworktitledHinduNationalism:AReader(2007).

220

IndianstorevaluatethewordsofVivekananda,andcometotermswiththefactthat

whereashisbrandofinclusivismand‘manly’stancemayhavebeenexactlywhatthe

nationneededwhentheywerefightingfortheirfreedomfromtheBritishRaj,today,

muchofwhatheadvocatedcancausemoreharmthangoodtoanIndiannationthatis

soproudofitsdiversity.

Inthischapter,wewillfirstsurveyhowVivekananda’spropensity,toprivilege

AdvaitaVedantaastheepitomeofHindutraditionalideology,underminesalternate

Hinduphilosophicalschoolsandsectswhohistoricallyneverconsideredthemselvesto

betravellingonalesserpath.Todothis,wewillinvestigatethewaysinwhich

‘inclusive’languagecanbequiteproblematic.Furthermore,wewillexaminewhat

VivekanandahadtosayabouthisBuddhist,ChristianandMuslimbrethren,and

whetherhisviewsarerespectfulor,ifinstead,theyarecovertly(andoftentimes

overtly)intolerant.Moreover,wewillalsodeterminewhetherVivekananda’sopinions

onwomenareviewsthatwewanttoimbibeinthe21stcentury.Hashislanguageof

masculinityhadadverseeffectsonhowtheHindutvamovementviewstheroleof

womenincontemporaryIndia?Andlastbutnotleast,wewilldeterminewhetherthe

wayVivekanandahasbeenappropriated,bytheHindunationalistmovement,is

justified.Andif,asaresult,thismeansthatwemustbepreparedtoviewournational

heroeswithoutthepedestalswehaveplacedthemon,butrather,asordinarypeople

whosometimesachievedgreatfeats;peoplewhowecannotaffordtoemulate

unconditionally.80

80IowethisideatoJamesLoewenwhosebookLiesmyTeacherToldMe,notonlyinspiredmetolookdeeperfortruthsinIndianreligioushistorybutalsotounderstandthatheroeswhoareordinarymenandwomenaremorelikelytobeemulatedbytheyouththanthosewhoarebelievedtobecompletelyuntainted:“Whateverthecauses,theresultsofHeroficationarepotentiallycripplingtostudents…Ourchildrenendupwithoutrealisticrolemodelstoinspirethem”(Loewen,1995,p.25).

221

Aswesawinthelasttwochapters,VivekanandaintentionallyprivilegedAdvaita

Vedantaoverallotherschoolsofthought.Forhim,Advaitawastheanswer,Advaitawas

theway,Advaitawasthehighestlevelofphilosophythatonecouldattain.Butwhat

doesthismeanforotherpaths?Howdidthiseffectthevalidityandpositionoftheother

sects,andtraditions,thathewasrelegatingtoalowerrungontheHindutotempole?

HowdidthishierarchyaffectthemandtheIndianspirituallandscape?Andperhaps

mostimportantly,whydidthesesectsallowAdvaitatobeprivilegedovertheirown

ideology?Therearemultiple,complexreasonsforwhysuchahierarchywasnotonly

allowedtobecultivated,butatsomejuncturesevenencouraged.Onecouldarguethat

thiswasaby-productof‘continentalcollision’.AsKingandThaparhavealreadypointed

out,similarly,BasuarguesthatelitesacrossIndiawereclearonthefactthattheyhadto

findawaytounitethecountry:

Nationalistsinnineteenth-centuryIndiawereinsearchofanappropriateconceptfordescribingasocietywhichwaslikeamosaic,beingcomposedofdiverseracesandreligions;thechallengefortheintellectualsofthattimewastofindajustificationforthisuniquesocialstructurewithoutdenyingitspresence.TheAdvaitatheologyprovidedtheanswerstoboththeseproblems;itenablesitsacknowledgementwhileatthesametimeitprovidedaphilosophicaldefence(2002,p.78).

Vivekananda’ssuccessattheParliamentservedasacatalystforHinduswhohadbeen

strugglingamongstthemselvestofindacohesivepath.HisdeclarationthatIndia’s

greateststrengthwasitsspiritualitygaveothereliteleadersawaytofindcommon

ground.Thishadnotbeeneasysince,aswehavealreadydiscussed,traditionalistsand

reformerswerenotalwaysinconsensus.However,Vivekanandaseemedtohavestruck

achordwiththosewhowantedabannerunderwhichtheycouldallunite.

Forthereformers,hisemphasisonVedanta,whichwasarationalphilosophical

schoolofthought,thatseeminglypromoteduniversalreligiousidealswasacausethey

couldrallybehind.Ofcourse,thiswasnotanewdevelopmentbutratheronethathad

222

beenmaturingforoveracentury.Forexample,wesawhowHatcherhighlightedthat

fromthetimeofRammohanRoy,theBrahmoshaddefendedVedantaphilosophyin

theirownuniquefashion.Indeed,theBrahmoshadalongandcomplicatedhistorywith

theVedasandwhereastheydidnotacceptthesetextstobeinfalliblescriptures,they

didacceptthattheycontainedcertaininvaluabletruths:

Oneofthemissionaries’favoritetargetsfromearlyinthenineteenthcenturyhadbeenthephilosophyofVedanta,bywhichtheymeanttherenunciantmonismofSankara’sAdvaitaVedanta.RammohunhadinternalizedenoughofthiscritiquetowishtoarguethatthecorephilosophyofHinduismwasnotmonisticillusionismbutamonotheismconsistentwiththatfoundinJudaism,ChristianityandIslam.Atthesametime,however,Rammohunwouldnotconcedeeverythingtothemissionaries.Instead,heworkedzealouslytoretainandredeemthenameofVedantabypublishingandcommentingonhisownBengalitranslationsofitsSanskritsources,namely,theUpanisadsandtheBrahmaSutras.TheimplicationofthisisthatfromthetimeofRammohun,VedantabecamewhatwemightcallthesacredcowofthemodernHinduinterpreter–aculturalmarker,butonewhichneededconstantexplanationanddefense(Hatcher,1999,p.112).

ThiscomplexrelationshipcontinuedoverdecadeswiththeVedantabecomingan

“embattledemblem”whichtheBrahmoleaderscontinuouslyfoughttoupholdby

arguing:

theirVedantictheismwasnotaninnovationbutsimplyareturntotheso-calledunitrarian,ormonotheistic,religionoftheancientVedas.However,Rajnarain’s[Bose,aBrahmoleaderinthe19thcentury]essaysalsoappealedtomodernistargumentsdrawnfromrationalismandnaturaltheology(Hatcher,1999,pp.112-113).

ThusHatcherconcludes,“ThecreativeeclecticismofVivekananda…didwondersfor

givingVedantaacentralplaceintheemergingdiscourseofapologeticHinduismand

Indiannationalism”(1999,p.115).

Similarly,forthetraditionalists,thefactthatthisschoolprivilegedtheancient

Vedicscriptures,thatformedthebasisformuchoftheirownorthodoxritualsand

practices,calmedtheirfearsoftheirwayoflifebeingusurpedbyreforminthenameof

modernity.Indeed,VivekanandabeganhiscampaigntopromoteAdvaitaVedanta,as

223

thevoiceofHinduideas,byfirstestablishingtheprimacyoftheVedanta,withthe

traditionalists,soonafterhereturnedtoIndiafromhisfirstvisitoverseas;“Allthe

philosophersofIndiawhoareorthodoxhavetoacknowledgetheauthorityofthe

Vedanta”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.120).Somuchso,thatAnantanandRambachan

contendsthatoneofthemainreasonswhyVivekananda’sversionofAdvaitabecame

thedominantmodelfor‘Hinduism’inIndiawasbecause:

HesawclearlythattheacceptanceoftheauthorityoftheVedaswasoneofthefewcommonpointsaroundwhichdifferentreligiousallegiancesinIndiacouldbeunited…Likehisemploymentofthedistinctionsbetweensrutiandsmriti,Vivekananda’sstressonthecommonauthorityoftheVedasandhisequationofitwithorthodoxymustbeplacedinthewidercontextofhisanxietyforandcommitmenttonationalandreligiousunity.OneofthemostcommonofVivekananda’sthemesthroughoutthistriumphallecturetourwastheviewthatreligionconstitutedthecentral,indispensablecharacteristicofnationallifeinIndia(1994,p.57).Consequently,asweturntothisfinalchapteronthecurrenteffectsof

Vivekananda’slegacy,wewillfocusonunpackinghowhiswordshavebeen

appropriatedbytheSanghParivar.81Howhavetheyinterpretedhismessageinsucha

wayastoadvocateforHindusupremacyinIndia?And,how,byprivilegingthe

supremacyofAdvaitaVedanta,multiple,alternatevoiceshavebeenmarginalized.One

simplyhastoinvestigatehowtextbooksarebeingchallenged,andscholarsarebeing

silenced,tounderstandhowproblematicthisstanceis.82Heterodoxyisatraitthathas

beencultivatedonIndiansoilsinceancienttimes.Differentsects,andso-called‘world

religions’cameintoexistenceonIndiansoilbecausetheyrefusedtocomplywiththe

dominantworldview.This,iswhatmadeIndiabothstrongandunique.This,iswhat

81TheSanghParivarisaHindunationalistconglomeratewhoseparentorganizationistheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangha(RSS)82IwilloutlinethewayhistorytextbooksandhistoriansarebeinginterrogatedlaterinthischapterwhenwediscusshowothertraditionsaremarginalizedbyusingVivekananda’sideology.

224

allowedHindutraditionstoenduremultiple‘continentalcollisions’andsurvive.InThe

ArgumentativeIndian(2005),theNobellaureateAmartyaSenstates:

ItisindeedimportanttounderstandthelongtraditionofacceptedheterodoxyinIndia.InresistingtheattemptsbytheHindutvaactiviststocaptureancientIndiaastheirhomeground(andtoseeitastheuniquecradleofIndiancivilization),itisnotenoughtopointoutthatIndiahasmanyothersourcesofcultureaswell.ItisnecessaryalsotoseehowmuchheterodoxytherehasbeeninIndianthoughtsandbeliefsfromveryearlydays(2005,p.xii).

Accordingly,Sencontends:

Thecontemporaryrelevanceofthedialogictraditionandoftheacceptanceofheterodoxyishardtoexaggerate.Discussionsandargumentsarecriticallyimportantfordemocracyandpublicreasoning.Theyarecentraltothepracticeofsecularismandforeven-handedtreatmentofadherentsofdifferentreligiousfaiths(includingthosewhohavenoreligiousbeliefs).Goingbeyondthesebasicstructuralpriorities,theargumentativetradition,ifusedwithdeliberationandcommitment,canalsobeextremelyimportantinresistingsocialinequalitiesandinremovingpovertyanddeprivation.Voiceisacrucialcomponentofthepursuitofsocialjustice(2005,p.xiii).ItismycontentionthatthemostusefulwaytoanalysehowVivekananda’s

wordshavebeenbroughtintothe21stcenturyisbyexamininghowtheSanghParivar

hasbeenusingthelanguageandideologythatVivekanandahelpedpopularize.Assuch,

IwillusetheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(henceforthRSS)andtheSanghParivaras

alensthroughwhichtounpackVivekananda’sstatementsanditsimpactonIndia.So,

whoaretheSanghParivar?WhatistheRSS?And,whatistheirrelationshipwiththe

Hindutvamovement?

TheSanghParivar

InthepreviouschapterwesawthatV.D.Savarkarconceivedtheterm‘Hindutva’,

wherebyhearticulatedthat‘Hindu-ness’wascomprisedofthreebasiccharacteristics,

“geographicalunity,racialfeaturesandacommonculture”(Jaffrelot,2007,p.86).Oneof

thereasonswhySavarkarformulatedtheseideaswasbecausehewasreactingto

225

growinghostilities,betweentheHindusandtheMuslims,inthe1920’s.Itwas

presumedthatapan-Islamicmovementcouldprovetobeaformidableopponenttothe

Hinducommunity,sincetheBritishwereintentonusing‘divideandrule’tacticsto

controltheircolonies:

[Savarkar’s]bookwasthefirstattemptatendowingwhathecalledtheHinduRashtra(theHindunation)withaclear-cutidentity:namelyHindutva,awordcoinedbySavarkarandwhich,accordingtohimdoesnotcoincidewithHinduism…SavarkararguedthatreligionwasonlyoneaspectofHinduidentity…ThefirstcriterionoftheHindunation,forhim,isthesacredterritoryofAryavartaasdescribedintheVedas…Thencomesrace:forSavarkartheHindusarethedescendantsof‘Vedicfathers’whooccupiedthisgeographicalareasinceantiquity.Inadditiontoreligion,landandrace,SavarkarmentionslanguageasapillarofHinduidentity.WhendoingsohereferstoSanskritbutalsotoHindi:hencetheequationhefinallyestablishedbetweenHindutvaandthetriptych:‘Hindu,Hindi,Hindustan’.Hindunationalismappearsforthefirsttimeasresultingfromthesuperimpositionofareligion,aculture,alanguage,andsacredterritory–theperfectrecipeforethnicnationalism(Jaffrelot,2007,pp.14-15).

However,whereasSavarkarwasthepersonwhocreatedtheideologyforHindu

nationalism,itwasKeshavBaliramHedgewarwhotookSarvarkar’sideasandwenton

toformtheRSSin1925:

Thisorganization–whichquicklydevelopedintothelargestHindunationalistmovement–wasintendednotonlytopropagatetheHindutvaideologybutalsotoinfusenewphysicalstrengthintothemajoritycommunity.ToachievethistwofoldobjectivetheRSSadoptedaveryspecificmodusoperandi.HedgewardecidedtoworkatthegrassrootsinordertoreformHindusocietyfrombelow:hecreatedlocalbranches(shakhas)ofthemovementintownsandvillagesaccordingtoastandardpattern.YoungHindumengatheredeverymorningandeveryeveningonaplaygroundforgameswithmartialconnotationsandideologicaltrainingsessions.Themeninchargeoftheshakhas,calledpracharaks(preachers),dedicatedtheirwholelifetotheorganization;asapartofRSScadrestheycouldbesentanywhereinIndiatodeveloptheorganization’snetwork….TheRSSsoonbecamethemostpowerfulHindunationalistmovementbutitdidnothavemuchimpactonpubliclifebecauseitremainedoutofpolitics(Jaffrelot,2007,p.16).

Notsurprisingly,thisbanonpoliticsintheRSSdidnotlastlongand“theBharatiyaJana

Sangha(forerunnerofthepresentBharatiyaJanataPartyorBJP)”wasfoundedin1951

(Jaffrelot,2007,p.17).

226

However,politicswasnottheonlyarenawheretheRSSwantedtostartexerting

itsinfluence,butrather,itestablishedseveraldifferentorganizationsforawidearrayof

socialcategoriesand,assuch,therewasaproliferationofassociationsthatemerged

overthefollowingdecades,afewofwhicharementionedbelow:

Thusin1948RSScadresbasedinDelhifoundedtheAkhilBharatiyaVidyarthiParishad(ABVP–IndianStudents’Association)…In1955theRSSgaveitselfaworkers’union,theBharatiyaMazdoorSangh(BMS–IndianWorkersAssociation)[which]becameIndia’slargesttradeunion…in1952itfoundedatribalmovement,theVanavasiKalyanAshram(VKA–CentreforTribalWelfare),whichaimedabovealltocountertheinfluenceofChristianmovementsamongaboriginalsofIndia…In1964,inassociationwithHinduclerics,theRSSsetuptheVishvaHinduParishad(VHP–WorldCouncilofHindus),amovementresponsibleforgroupingtheheadsofvariousHindusectsinordertolendthishithertounorganizedreligionasortofcentralizedstructure…Anothersubsidiary,VidyaBharati(IndianKnowledge),wasestablishedin1977tocoordinateanetworkofschools…Lastly,in1979theRSSfoundedSevaBharati(IndianService)topenetrateIndia’sslumsthroughsocialactivities(freeschools,low-costmedicines,etc.).Takentogether,thesebridgeheadsarerepresentedbythemotherorganizationasformingthe‘SanghParivar’or‘thefamilyoftheSangh’,thatis,oftheRSS(Jaffrelot,2007,pp.18-19).Whatisinterestingisthatmanyofthetactics,thattheRSSusedtospreadits

messageandinfluence,wereideasthatVivekanandahimselfhadspokenaboutduring

hislifetime.AccordingtoVivekananda,thebestwaytoimprovethelivesand

circumstancesofhispovertystricken,uneducatedIndianbrethrenwasthroughselfless

seva(service).Indeed,thiswasagoalthatwasextremelyimportanttohim,andwhich

hefoughttoaccomplish,evenwhenitmeantgoingupagainstmanyofhisbrother

discipleswhodidnotalwaysagreethatVivekananda’sinterpretationofsevawaswhat

Ramakrishnahadinmind.Seva,inthereligiouscontext,wascommonlyunderstoodto

beservicetothedivine,anactofdevotiontowardsadeityoraguru.However,

Vivekanandaarguedthatonecouldalsointerpretthistermtosignifyserviceto

humankind,inthenameofthedivine.

227

Ofcourse,Vivekanandawasnotuniqueinhighlightingtheneedforserviceto

humanity.Afterall,socialservicewasanimportantaspectofChristianmissionary

activityduringthecolonialera.Furthermore,theBrahmoSamajcanbeaccreditedwith

severalsocialreformsandprojects.However,itwasVivekanandawhoencouragedhis

brotherdisciplestobecomesanyasiswhotookactionintheworldbyurgingthemto

dedicatetheirlivestothepooranddowntrodden.Hearguedthatbyselfishlychoosing

personalsalvationtheywereturningtheirbacksonthepovertyandhardshipsthat

theirfellowhumanbeingswerefacing.SomescholarshavearguedthatVivekananda,

liketheBrahmos,wassimplyincorporatingideasthathehadimbibedfromtheWest.

However,inSwamiVivekananda’sLegacyofService(2006),GwilymBeckerlegge

cautionsagainstscholarswhotakeasimplistic,WesttoEast,linearviewofhowsocial

serviceandphilanthropicmovementsdevelopedinIndia.Rather,hecontends:

Vivekananda’searlyinvolvementinfamine-reliefmarksthepointatwhichfeedingthehungry,alreadyacharitableactrequiredwithinthedictatesofHindudharma,becametransformedintoaformof‘socialservice’asthatphrasehascometobeunderstood.Thiswassustainedinterventiononanexpandingscalethatrequiredplanning,organization,fund-raising,liaisonwithotheragencies,andthuspublicaccountability.Itwasnolongeranadhocexpressionofcharitableactionnormerelythesumofindividuallymotivatedactions.ThenineteenthcenturysawtheintroductionalsoinBritainofmeasuresthatsignalledarealizationthatprivate,inthiscontextChristian-inspired,philanthropycouldnolongerbereliedupontoredresstheextentofsocialdeprivationencounteredinarapidlyindustrializingsociety.SimilarchangesweretakingplaceintheUnitedStates.Althoughdifferentinkind,BritishIndiaexperiencednolesssweepingchangesduringthissameperiodwhichmadeplainthelimitationsinthecapacityoftraditionalformsofcharitableactiontomeetnewlevelsofneed.Vivekananda’spoliciesinthisrespectwerethusverymuchintunewiththenew‘scientificspirit’thathadbeguntopercolateorganizedactivityintheWest(Beckerlegge,2006(b),pp.177-178).

228

Beckerleggearticulates,indetail,thepitfallsassociatedwithsuggesting,asJ.N.Farquhar

doesinhisseminalworkModernReligiousMovementsinIndia(1915),that

Vivekananda’s‘sadhana’ofservicewassimplyinspiredbytheWest:83

Ultimately,argumentsthatthematureRamakrishnamovement’scommitmenttoservingthepoorandoppressedisfoundeduponadiscontinuitybetweenVivekanandaandRamakrishna,andthusbetweenVivekanandaandtheextendedHindutradition,maycarryimplicitjudgementsonthecapacityoftheHindutraditiontochangeandtoprovideanauthenticbasisforsocialactivism(Beckerlegge,2006(b),p.3).Bethatasitmay,thiswasnotacommoninterpretationofseva,anditisnot

surprisingthatVivekanandametwithaconsiderableamountofresistancewhenheput

forthhisideas.84Indeed,SumitSarkarsurmises:

He[Vivekananda]hadtofight,inaway,againstanentireHindutraditioninwhichcharitymightattimesbeconsideredapartofthedharmaofakingorhouseholder,butwherethesanyasi’sprincipalidealwasindividualmoksha,notimprovementoftheworld(2014,p.207).

However,despitehismanycritics,Vivekanandawasobviouslysuccessfulsince

themotto,tothisday,fortheRamakrishnaMathandMissionis:

Atmanomomoksharthamjagadhitayacha

Forone’sownsalvation,andforthewelfareoftheworld85

VivekanandabeganhiseffortstowardsthisgoalassoonashereturnedtoIndiafromhis

firstWesterntour.Heencouragedhislistenerstoservehumanitybylinkingittoservice

toGod.Notsurprisingly,heusedananecdotetogethispointacrossand,foradded

emphasis,hepresentedhisideasinatemplesetting:

Arichmanhadagardenandtwogardeners.Oneofthesegardenerswasverylazyanddidnotwork;butwhentheownercametothegarden,thelazymanwouldgetupandfoldhisarmsandsay,“Howbeautifulisthefaceofmymaster”,anddancebeforehim.Theothergardenerwouldnottalkmuch,butwouldwork

83Farquharclearlystates“thetruthisthatancientHinduismdoesnotteachthedutyofserviceatall”(Farquhar,1915,p.206).Beckerleggedefines‘sadhana’as‘meansofattainment’or‘spiritualdiscipline’(2006,p.1-2).84SeeBeckerlegge,(2006b)foradetailedstudyonthistopic.85http://belurmath.org/

229

hard,andproduceallsortsoffruitsandvegetableswhichhewouldcarryonhisheadtohismasterwholivedalongwayoff.Ofthesetwogardeners,whichwouldbethemorebelovedofhismaster?Shivaisthatmaster,andthisworldisHisgarden,andtherearetwosortsofgardenershere;theonewhoislazy,hypocritical,anddoesnothing,onlytalkingaboutShiva’sbeautifuleyesandnoseandotherfeatures;andtheother,whoistakingcareofShiva’schildren,allthosethatarepoorandweak,allanimalsandallHiscreation.WhichofthesewouldbethemorebelovedofShiva?CertainlyhethatservesHischildren.Hewhowantstoservethefathermustservethechildrenfirst.HewhowantstoserveShivamustserveHischildren–mustserveallcreaturesinthisworldfirst.ItissaidintheShastrathatthosewhoservetheservantsofGodareHisgreatestservants.Soyouwillbearthisinmind(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.142).86

Here,Vivekanandamadeitabundantlyclearthathebelievedthatsevaentailedserving

thepooranddowntrodden.And,Vivekanandahadavisionforwhatsevahewantedthe

RamakrishnaMathsanyasistofocuson:

knowforcertainthatabsolutelynothingcanbedonetoimprovethestateofthings,unlessthereisspreadofeducationfirstamongthewomenandthemasses.AndsoIhaveitinmymindtotrainupsomeBrahmacharinsandBrahmacharinis,theformerofwhomwilleventuallytakethevowofSannyasaandtrytocarrythelightofeducationamongthemasses,fromvillagetovillage,throughoutthecountry(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.489).

BeforedepartingforhissecondtourintheWest,Vivekanandainstructedthejunior

sanyasisofBelurMath:

Inourcountry,theoldideaistositinacaveandmeditateanddie.Togoaheadofothersinsalvationiswrong.Onemustlearnsoonerorlaterthatonecannotgetsalvationifonedoesnottrytoseekthesalvationofhisbrothers.Youmusttrytocombineinyourlifeimmenseidealismwithimmensepracticality.Youmustbepreparedtogointodeepmeditationnow,andthenextmomentyoumustbereadytogoandcultivatethesefields(Swamijisaid,pointingtothemeadowsoftheMath).YoumustbepreparedtoexplainthedifficultintricaciesoftheShastrasnow,andthenextmomenttogoandselltheproduceofthefieldsinthemarket.Youmustbepreparedforallmenialservices,notonlyhere,butelsewherealso(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.447).

ItisrathersurprisingtodiscoverthatthesimilaritiesbetweenVivekananda’s

instructionstohissanyasis,regardingseva,andtheSanghParivar’srulesfortheir

86ThesubtlecriticismthatVivekanandaaimsatbhaktasisevidentinthisanecdote;anissuethatwewilladdressinthefollowingsection.

230

organizations’dedicationtoservice,areremarkablyhomogenous.Bothrequiredtheir

leaderstobecelibateandaustere.Bothadvocateforreformatagrassrootslevel.And

bothexpecttheirfollowerstobepreparedtotraveltospreadtheirmessage.

BeckerleggehighlightstheparallelsthatcanbedrawnbetweentheRamakrishna

MathandMission,andtheSanghParivar,byinvestigatingthesimilaritiesintheir

respectiveconceptsofseva,andthecommonalitiesinthestructuringoftheirindividual

organizations.Interestingly,thefirsttwoleadersoftheRSShadbeeninfluenced,in

theiryouth,byVivekananda’sideologyandmethods:

Boththefirsttwosupremeleaders(sarsanghchalaks)oftheRSShadsignificantdegreesofassociationwiththeRamakrishnaMathandMission.KeshavBaliramHedgewar(1889-1940),thefounderoftheRSS,participatedinreliefoperationsorganizedbytheRamakrishnaMission(1912/1913)whileastudentinKolkata.Thesecondsarsanghchalakandoneofitsmostinfluentialideologues,MadhavSadashivGolwalkar(1906-1973),wasdevotedtoSwamiAkhandananda(1865-1937)oftheRamakrishnaMath,whohadbeenVivekananda’sgurubhai[brotherdisciple].HaditnotbeenforAkhandananda’sdeathin1937,GolwalkarmightwellhaveofferedhimselffortrainingtoentertheRamakrishnaMath(Beckerlegge,2010,p.71).

Indeed,theconnectionbetweentheRSSandtheRamakrishnaMathandMissionisnota

recentphenomenon,especiallysincetheRSSroutinely“makesconsiderableuseof

imagesofVivekanandaandquotationsfromhisworksinitsliteratureandwebsites”

(Beckerlegge,2006(a),p.49).Whatisofparticularinterest:

Theroleofthepracharak,thefull-timeworkerandorganizerwhoisexpectedtoremainunmarriedandtomaintainacelibateandasceticlifestylehasalsobeencentraltothecreationandmanagementofsevaprojectswithintheRSS(Beckerlegge,2006(a),p.49).

TheseleadersoftheRSSarenotexpectedtobecomesanyasisbuttheyareaskedto

showanextremelysimilarsenseofdevotiontotheirchosenpath.Thedevelopmentof

theVivekanandaKendra,whichisanotherorganizationwithintheSanghParivar,isalso

noteworthy:

231

VivekanandaKendra–alayorderofmenandwomendedicatedtopromotingVivekananda’steachingandofferingseva(inthiscontext,servicetohumanity)–wascreatedoutoftheresidualmomentumbuiltbytheRSS’snationalcampaigntoerecttheRockMemorial(Beckerlegge,2010,p.72).

TheRockMemorialwasbuiltin1970,bytheRSS,inKanyakumari,tocommemoratethe

placewhereVivekanandaissaidtohavemadehisdecisiontotravelWestinsearchofa

solutiontoalleviatethepovertyhehadwitnessedamongsthisIndianbrethren.Some

hagiographiesalsoclaimthatthisiswhereVivekanandaexperiencedenlightenment.

ThefactthatitwastheRSSwhotookituponthemselvestobuildthismonumentand,

whocontinuetorunitusingthefundstheycollecttosupporttheserviceprojectsthey

spearheadinthisregion,showsaremarkableattachmenttoVivekanandaandhis

mission.WhatBeckerleggeaccomplisheswiththisstudyistodemonstratehow

Vivekananda’sideologyhasbeenappropriated,andcultivated,bytheSanghParivarand

howcloselytheRSShasbeenassociatingitselfwiththelegacyofVivekananda.Itcould

bearguedthatoneofthereasonswhytheRSShasbeenabletogainsuchalarge

followingisspecificallybecauseofthemultipleserviceprogramsthattheyhave

established,andcontinuetomaintain,acrossthenation.UsingsomeofVivekananda’s

methods,theyhavebeensuccessfulatreachingthemassesthewayheenvisioned.Yet,

itisonlyrecentlythatVivekanandahascometobelinkedwiththeSanghParivar.Why

isthis?WhyhaverenownpoliticalscientistslikeParthaChatterjeeandmorerecently,

ChristopheJaffrelotchosentoignoreVivekananda’sroleinthedevelopmentofthe

SanghParivar?Forinstance,inhisstudywhichfocusesprimarilyonHindunationalism,

JaffrelotoffersthefollowingjustificationforexcludingVivekananda:

Theselectionofthepoliticalthinkers,orideologues,includedinthisanthologyhasbeendeterminedbyaverysimpleconsideration:thosewhohaveplayedaroleinorganizedHindunationalistmovementshavebeensystematicallypreferredtoindividualswhohaveneverbeenmentorstoinstitutionalizedsocio-politicalassociations.AsaresultSriAurobindoandSwamiVivekananda–whose

232

thoughtprocesseshadaffinitieswithHindunationalism–havebeenomitted(Jaffrelot,2007,p.24).

WhatisitaboutVivekanandathat,despitescholars(likeGwilymBeckerleggeand

JyotirmayaSharma)whounderscoretherolethatheplayed,andcontinuestoplay,in

thephilosophyoftheSanghParivar,thatVivekanandacontinuestobeseenasabenign

universalistwhoonlysoughttopromoteaunited‘Hinduism’?Perhapstheclueliesin

thefactthatVivekanandaapparentlynevertriedtopromoteaHindunationtheway

thattheRSSdoes?Ordidhe?Washejustmorecarefulandbetteratcamouflaginghis

messagethanhisRSSprogeny?AswecomparehismessagewiththatoftheSangh

ParivarperhapswewillfindthattheNarendrawhospokeatthetimewhenIndiawas

searchingforitsplaceintheglobalarenatransformsintoacompletelydifferent

Narendrawhenwearefacedwithanationthatisbeingthreatenedbyfundamentalist

ideas.

Or,alternatively,couldthisapparentdichotomybemorevisiblenowthat

Vivekananda’scorpusofwritingisavailable,asawhole,forscholarstoexamineand

unpack?CouldVivekananda’swritingsbesusceptibletoa‘hermeneuticsofsuspicion’?

Thistheory,thatpost-modernscholarsoccasionallyopttousewhenanalysingprimary

textscouldbeapplicablehere;atheorythatwasmadepopularbythe“mastersof

suspicion”:

Marx,FreudandNietzsche–eachinhisownway–suggestthatsubjectivitymayindeedbedeceived,notfromwithout,butfromwithin:itisself-deceived…TheMarxistthereforeengagesinacritiqueofideologyinordertouncoverthecovertinterestslurkingbehindtheapparentmeaningofthetext.AFreudianissuspiciousofreceivedtextsforquitedifferentreasons,butthehermeneuticaleffectiscomparable.Herethe‘ideological’factorisnoteconomicandsocialbutunconsciousandindividual:tounderstandatextrightlytheinterpretermusttakeintoaccounttheunconsciousmotivationsthatmaybeatworkbehindthefaçadeofrationaldiscourse.WithNietzschethesituationismorecomplex…buttheneedtotakeakindoffalseconsciousnessintoaccountlinkshispositionstothatofMarxandFreud(Green,2005,p.401,emphasisinoriginal).

233

Forexample,inInSearchofDreamtime(1993),MasuzawaanalysesEmile

Durkheim’sTheElementaryFormsoftheReligiousLife(1912).Here,shecontendsthat

Durkheimseemstobe‘shadowboxing’withhimselfwhenheisdevelopingthe

argumentshepresentsinhisbook(Masuzawa,1993,p.34).Shearguesthatthisis

becauseDurkheimapparentlyhastwotheses,whichareatcrosspurposeswitheach

other.ThequestionanyreaderofDurkheimhastoasktheniswhetherhewasawareof

thesplitpersonalityofhisbookor,ifinstead,hewasunabletosilencehisinnervoice

sufficiently,resultinginitrearingitsheadunbeknownsttoitscreator,inthemost

inappropriatespaces.

Whiletheauthor[Durkheim]claimsthatthereisoneoriginofreligionanditissimple,thetextalsodemonstratesthatitisnotso,thatoriginassuchissomethingdisjunctive.Induecourse,thereadercomestorecognizeacertainunnamedandunacknowledgedelementthatcontinuallyinterruptsandobfuscatestheauthorialwriting.Ineffect,thisunauthorized“voice”silentlycriticizesthemetaphysicalquestthatmotivatesthetext,andintimeinducessomemuffledconfessionsconcerningthedisparitythatinhabitseveryassertionoforigin(Masuzawa,1993,p.34).

ArewewitnessingasimilardissonantvoiceinVivekananda’swritings?Itisnosecret

thatscholarswhohaveworkedwithVivekanandahaveoftentimesfoundhim

contradictinghimself.87Onecanargue,thatVivekananda’smessagechangesdepending

onwhohisaudienceis.Similarly,onecanalsoarguethathispublicspeechesand

lectureshaveadifferenttoneandtenorthanhisprivatecorrespondence.However,this

maynotbeallwearedealingwithhere.Perhaps,asMasuzawasuggestswithDurkheim,

nowthatweasVivekananda’sreadersmustinterprethiswrittenwords,alternate

strandsofhisargumentsarebecomingvisible.Strandsthatdonotcorrespondtohis

dominantmessageofasanyasi.AnAdvaitinsanyasiwhowasprimarilyinterestedin

87BrianHatcher,NarasinghaSil,AnantanandRambachanandRajgopalChattopadhyaya,tomentionjustafew,allalludetoVivekananda’scontradictorystatementsandpenchanttogiveseeminglyopposingarguments.

234

promotingphilanthropicprojectswhilearticulatinghowhisversionof‘Hinduism’was

bestsuitedtorepresentHindutraditions.Afterall,thefactthathiswordsarebeing

appropriatedsoblithelybytheHindutvamovementwouldsuggestthattherearelatent

messagesinhisideologythatmustbebroughttolight.Thatwemayindeedbedealing

withmultipleNarendras.

Isittimetorejectthehierarchy?

OneofthetopicsthatwehavecoveredextensivelyisVivekananda’spropensity

topaintallIndiantraditionswithanAdvaitawhitewash.Whereasthismayhavebeena

usefultacticduringthecolonialera,ithasnowbecomeaproblemthatisescalatingata

rapidpacewiththehelpoftheSanghParivar.Thishierarchy,thatthesemethodshave

cultivated,havenotonlymarginalizedmultiplereligioustraditions,but,havealso

changedhowmanyHindusjustifytheircontinuedregardfordevotionalandritual

practicesandnorms.AnessaythatimpactedmewhenIstartedmygraduatestudiesis

VasudhaNarayanan’s“DiglossicHinduism:LiberationandLentils”(2000).Here,

NarayananhighlightshowshewasdismayedwhenshediscoveredthattheHindu

traditionsshegrewupwith,werenotconsideredtobeimportantaspectsofthe

‘Hinduism’shehadcometostudyasagraduatestudentatHarvardUniversity.This

experiencepropelledhertomakethefollowingobservations:

TheHindutradition,likemanyotherreligions,iscomplexanddiglossiaisrampant.TherearecleardistinctionsbetweenandrocentricSanskrittextsandpractice.Thereisafurtherremovalfromthe“ontheground”picturewhenwecometotherepresentationof“Hinduism”asatraditiontryingtofitthestraightjacketofanineteenth-centuryunderstandingof“religion.”TosomeextentthisisbecauseearlywesternIndologistsandscholarsofreligionreliedonmalebrahminsfortheirunderstandingofthetradition.Noneofthiswaswrong;itwasjustthattheepicstories,thevariationsofthestories,thevarietiesofdevotionalactivity,thecelebrationsoffestivals,andthefussaboutfoodseemfarmoreimportantthandoctrineandphilosophyinthepracticeofHindutraditions(Narayanan,2000,p.762).

235

Accordingly,shedrawsattentiontothefactthatnotonlyareamultitudeofpractices,

thatmanyHindusconsidertoformthebasisoftheirreligiousbelief,absentfrom

textbooksbutalso:

Hindusdonotusuallywalkaroundworryingabouttheirkarmaorworkingtowardmoksha(liberation),noraremostfolkfamiliarwithanythingmorethanthenameVedantaamongthevariousschoolsofphilosophy(Narayanan,2000,p.762).

NarayananreasonsthatthismyopicviewofHindutraditionshasbeenfuelledbythe

textbooksthatspeakforHindutraditions:

Whatwasleftoutofalmostallofthesetextsthatpresentedthe“religion”of“Hinduism”includes(a)dharmicpracticeslikethegivingofgifts,makingdonations,andmerit-makingexerciseslikediggingwellsorcelebrationsinplantingtrees;(b)vernacularliteratureandtherefore,thevoicesofwomen,whodidnotcomposeinSanskritbut,rather,intheregionallanguages;(c)ritualsandpracticesoftheso-calledlowercastes,especiallyofwomen;and(d)practicesthatcameunderthecategoriesof“pollution”and“purity.”“auspiciousness”and“inauspiciousness.”Thelatterincludethemuchlamentedlentilsthatmygrandmothermade(therightonefortherightoccasion),therightastrologicaltimesforstartingjourneysorembarkingonanytask,celebratingweddingsandsoon.ThesewerejustafewofthetopicsjettisonedwhentheconceptofHinduismwasmatchedwiththetermreligion.Someoftheseconceptsweremoppedupbyanthropology,othersliketempleritualshaveonlyrecentlymadeittotextbooks.Whatwehave,therefore,insomeofthepopulartextsthathavebeenaroundformanyyearsisatraditionbasedonpartsoftheSanskrittextualtradition.Thisrelianceimmediatelyindicatestwothings:thetextswerewrittenbymenwhoweregenerallyhighcaste.Amongthechoiceoftextswrittenbythesehigh-castemen,itwastheritualoftheVedas;notionsofkarma,samsara,andmoksha;thespiritualpathsoftheBhagavadGita;andthephilosophicaltraditionsofthelaterperiodthatwerethefocusofmostdiscussions(Narayanan,2000,pp.763-764,emphasisinoriginal).Unfortunately,Narayanandoesnotdrawanexusfromthesetextsto

Vivekananda’steachingsortheRSS’influence.However,wejusthavetoexaminehow

Vivekanandademotedbhaktiandorthopraxytorealizethatthesetexts,whichare

lackinginsomanyintegralaspectsofHindureligiouslife,aresimplyreflectingthe

groundworkthatwaslaidacenturybefore.Forexample,evenintheshortanecdotethat

wasquotedintheprevioussection,wefindthatVivekanandabelittledthe‘gardener’

236

(read‘devotee’)whodancedandsanginfrontofhis‘master’(read‘deity’).Mostof

Vivekananda’sreferencestobhaktiareshroudedinthiskindoflanguage.Hedidnot

rejectitfromthereligiouslandscapeoftheHindusbuthedidrepeatedlydemoteittoa

runglowerthanAdvaita.Forinstance,oneoftheissuesthatVivekanandahadwith

bhaktiwasthatitbroughtoutthefeminineprincipleinitsdevotees.Indeed,hewas

quitevociferousinhisdenouncementoftheVaishnavasectswhosefollowersoften

adoptedfemininetraits:

Vaishnavismwasproclaimedasthereligionoftheheartwhichreliedonthefeminineprincipleofpiety,devotion,andemotionalattachmenttoGodwhichwasincontrasttowhatwasseenasthemasculineprincipleinreligionthatcenteredondryphilosophicaldiscussions(Basu,2002,p.155).

EventhoughthismodeofbhaktibearsadistinctresemblancetoRamakrishna,itwas,as

wehavealreadyseen,notthekindofdevotionthatVivekanandawaswillingto

encourage.Thus,itishardlysurprisingthatVivekanandathoughtitwasnecessaryto

highlight,whatheperceivedtobe,theproblematicstancetakenbytheVaishnavitesata

timeinhistorywhenIndiansneededtodemonstrate‘nervesofsteelandmusclesof

iron’totheircolonialrulers:

Vivekanandalaunchedafrontalattackontheneo-VaishnavapracticesofSankirtan[communalsingingofdevotionalsongs]…oneofhisfavoriteobjectsofridiculewastherenditionofdevotionalsongsbytheVaishnavites.Hewasparticularlyenragedbythefactthatduringtimesofplague,theneo-VaishnavaculttookrecoursetoSankirtanasthemostappropriatereligiousinstrumentfortheprotectionofpeoplefromthescourgeofthedreadeddisease.ThewayVivekanandajustifiedthisequivocalpositionofupliftingBhaktiwhilesimultaneouslynegatingtheeffortsoftheVaishnavitessuggestsaninherentlycomplexbutfamiliarruseto‘sanitizethepopular’inordertomakethepopulareligibleasthemodernandthenational(Basu,2002,p.157).88

88InamovethatisremarkablysimilartotheoneshemakesforotherreligiousleaderslikeRamakrishna,JesusandBuddha,hedisengagestheVaishnavasectsfromtheirfounderChaitanya,arguingthatthefollowersarenotlivinguptotheirmaster’sideals(Basu,2002,pp.155-158).

237

Ofcourse,Vivekanandawascarefultocloakhiswordsinlanguagethatwasboth

tolerantandinclusivebutnevertheless,themessagewasusuallyclear.Bhaktiand

ritualsweresimplyhowHindusbegantheirrelationshipwiththedivine.Andunlessthe

bhaktitheypracticedwasofthepurestform,likeRamakrishnaorChaitanya,itwasnot

enough;neithertoattainmokshanortoformastrongandindependentnation.For

thosegoals,Advaitaidealswouldeventuallyhavetobeembraced.

Perhapsthiswouldbeagoodplaceforustounpackwhattheterms‘exclusive’,

‘inclusive’and‘pluralist’cansignify.Thisshouldofferussomeinsightonhow

Vivekanandawasactuallydemeaningcertaintraditionsandsectswithoutanyoutward

signsofviolence.Manyreligiousscholarsingeneral,andChristiantheologiansin

particular,havegrappledwiththesetermsoverthecenturies.Idonotpresumetooffer

upanexhaustivestudyhere,butrather,willstreamlinemyargumentsothatitsheds

somelightonhowVivekananda’sideascanbeinterpreted.Althoughtherearemultiple

definitionsavailable,itisPerrySchmidt-Leukel’sinterpretationthatappearstobethe

mostcomprehensive:

Itis,however,possibletodefinethetermsofthetripartiteschemeinaclearandconsistentwaysothatonefinallyarrivesatacoherentand–ifnaturalismisadded–alogicallycomprehensiveclassification.Ifthecrucialquestionintheassessmentofreligiousdiversityiswhetherthereistruthintheclaimsofthevariousreligions(madeindifferentforms)torelatehumansinasoteriologicallydecisivewaytotranscendentreality,theanswercanbeeither‘no’or‘yes’.Whilethe‘no’-answersignifiesnaturalismthe‘yes’-answerisopenforfurthersub-classification.Doesthis‘yes’relatetotheclaimofonlyonereligionortomorethanone?Affirmingthefirstwouldconstituteexclusivism,affirmingthesecondwouldleadtothefurtherquestionwhetheramongthevarioustruereligionsoneisstandingoutassuperiortoalltheothersorwhetherthereisnosuchsinglesuperiority.Thefirstpositiondefinesinclusivismandthelatterpluralism.Notethatinthisdefinitionpluralismdoesnotsaythatthesoteriologicalclaimsofallreligionsareequallytrueandvalid.Someofthesecouldindeedbedeficientorevenentirelywrong.Butwhatitsaysisthatatleastsomereligions,despitetheirdifferences,canbeunderstoodasbeingindeedonthesamelevelandtrulyandefficientlymediatingasavingrelationtoanultimatetranscendentreality,thatis:thispositionaddsindeedtheological‘parity’to‘plurality’(Schmidt-Leukel,2010,pp.57-58,emphasisinoriginal).

238

Whatisofparticularinterest,forthepurposesofunderstandingwhereVivekanandafits

intothisclassificationsystem,isthattheterm‘inclusive’,eventhoughithassucha

seeminglypositivequalitytoit,inactualityisawordthatpromotesahierarchy.

Schmidt-Leukeldrawsattentiontothispoint:

Inclusivismcannotreallyappreciatediversity.AsWilfredCantwellSmithoncesaidincomparinghisownviewstotheinclusivistpositionofKarlRahner:‘HehasassumedthatChristianformulationsarethemakingexplicitofthetruthofGod’srelationtohumankind,whereasIhaveobservedthattheyareanexplicitformulation,butnotthe’(2010,p.59,emphasisinoriginal).

InthethirdchapterofthisstudyweengagedwithPaulHacker’stheorieswhich

included,butwerenotlimitedto,hisuseoftheword‘inclusivism’whendescribing

Hindusandtheirtraditions.Nowhowever,itisclearthatthisdescriptionoftheHindu

propensity,forengagingwithothertraditionsby‘including’themintotheirideological

framework,isactuallyjustasproblematicasthe‘exclusivist’position.Indeed,some

couldarguethatitisworsesinceitcomesacrossasabenignlabelbut,inactuality,itis

creatingahierarchicalschemewherebythetraditionthatisdoingthe‘including’is

actuallyclaimingitssuperiority.ThisisreflectedinJohnHick’sdefinition:

ByinclusivismImeantheview(advocatedbyKarlRahnerinhisinfluentialtheoryof‘anonymousChristianity’andlargelyadopted,thoughwithoutuseoftheterm,byVaticanII)thatone’sowntraditionalonehasthewholetruthbutthat

thistruthisneverthelesspartiallyreflectedinothertraditions(1983,p.487,emphasisadded).

Ofcourse,scholarswhomightwanttocometothedefenceofVivekanandacouldargue

thathedidnotinvokethistitlehimself,butrather,isonethatisroutinelyappliedtohis

ideology.89Perhaps,itmaybemoreappropriatetolabelhimasapluralist?However,

accordingtoGavinD’Costaeventhelabel‘pluralist’isladenwithundertones:

thepluralistbyvirtueoftheactofexclusionofJimJonesortheNazis,cantherebyincludevariousotherdoctrinesandpracticesinsomuchastheydonot

89Forexample,Basustates,“TheconceptofinclusivistHinduismcametobepreachedbysuchdiversethinkersasVivekanandaandRabindranathTagore”(2002,p.67).

239

contradicttheirownbasictruthclaimsandinthisactofinclusionandexclusionsuchpluralistsarelogicallynodifferentfromexclusivistswhosimplyarguethatthosewhoproperlyrelatetotherevelationareincludedinsalvationandthosewhodonotareexcluded(D'Costa,1996,p.226).

Onescholarwhohasaddressedsomeoftheseissues,inrelationtoVivekananda,

andhisinterpretationofHindutraditions,isGlynRichards:

Vivekananda’sexpressedpreferencefortheimpersonalconceptofGodasthefundamentalgroundorbasisforanyunderstandingofthepersonalconceptmeantthatthetypeofreligionthathadthegreatestappealforhimwasthatwhichpropoundedimpersonalratherthanpersonalconceptsoftheabsolute.Hewaswellawarethatcertainhistoricalreligiouslaidclaimtouniversality,buthedoubtedwhetheritwaspossibleforanyhistoricalreligiontomakesuchaclaimwhichpresumablyincludedAdvaitaVedanta(1995,p.132).

However,Richardsisnotreallyconvincingbecausehethengoesontoadmitthatasfar

asVivekanandawasconcerned,“dualism(Dvaita)isonalowerlevelofunderstanding

thanqualifiednon-dualism(Visistadvaita)andperfectnon-dualism(Advaita)”(1995,

p.133).RichardsarguesthateventhoughVivekanandahasbeenatthereceivingendof

muchcriticismregardinghisseeminglyexclusivestance,intruthheisactuallyspeaking

ofthe‘principle’ofnon-dualism,ratherthanitsparticularmanifestationasAdvaita

Vedanta:

Thequestioniswhetherheequatesnon-dualismwithAdvaitaVedantaasaparticular,historicalreligionorratherasaprinciplethatoughttodetermineourunderstandingofultimaterealityandtheabsolute.Hiscriticswouldaccusehimoftheformerandipsofactoguiltyofsectarianism(1995,p.134).

AccordingtoRichards,thiscriticismistooharshsincehebelievesthatVivekananda

wouldviewany‘religion’thattookanon-dualisticviewofexistencetobeavalidand

equalpath,comparabletoAdvaitaVedanta.However,thereisonemajorproblemwith

thisargumentbecauseRichardsalsoarguesthatVivekananda,liketheGerman

philosopherFriedrichSchleiermacher,believes“itisnotpossibletonominatea

particularhistoricalreligionastheperfectembodimentoftheessenceofreligion”

(Richards,1995,p.136).Andsince,VivekanandaconsideredtheVedas,andthetradition

240

associatedwithit,tobetheonlytraditionnottobehistoricallyfounded,like

Christianity,Islam,Buddhismetc.,onecouldjustaseasilyconcludethatfor

VivekanandaonlytheVedanta,withitspresumablyahistoricalroots,couldreflectthe

essenceofthedivine.Infact,thesesentimentsareamplydemonstratedinhiswords:

Thisisapeculiaritywhichwehavetounderstand–thatourreligionpreachesanImpersonalPersonalGod.Itpreachesanyamountofimpersonallawsplusanyamountofpersonality,buttheveryfountain-headofourreligionisintheShrutis,theVedas,whichareperfectlyimpersonal;thepersonsallcomeintheSmritisandPuranas–thegreatAvataras,IncarnationsofGod,Prophets,andsoforth.Andthisoughtalsotobeobservedthatexceptourreligion,everyotherreligionintheworlddependsuponthelifeorlivesofsomepersonalfounderorfounders.ChristianityisbuiltuponthelifeofJesusChrist,MohammedanismuponMohammed,BuddhismuponBuddha,JainismupontheJinas,andsoon.Itnaturallyfollowsthattheremustbeinallthesereligionsagooddealoffightaboutwhattheycallthehistoricalevidencesofthesegreatpersonalities.Ifatanytimethehistoricalevidencesofthesepersonagesinancienttimesbecomeweak,thewholebuildingofthereligiontumblesdownandisbrokentopieces.Weescapedthisfatebecauseourreligionisnotbaseduponpersonsbutonprinciples(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.249).

Similarly:

TodayIstandhereandsay,withtheconvictionoftruth,thatitisso.IfthereisanylandonthisearththatcanlayclaimtobetheblessedPunyaBhumi,tobethelandtowhichallsoulsonthisearthmustcometoaccountforKarma,thelandtowhicheverysoulthatisvendingitswayGodwardmustcometoattainitslasthome,thelandwherehumanityhasattaineditshighesttowardsgentleness,towardsgenerosity,towardspurity,towardscalmness,aboveall,thelandofintrospectionandofspirituality–itisIndia(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.105).

Andfinally:

Youhavealsoheard,quitewithinrecenttimes,theclaimsputforwardbyDr.Barrows,agreatfriendofmine,thatChristianityistheonlyuniversalreligion.LetmeconsiderthisquestionawhileandlaybeforeyoumyreasonswhyIthinkthatitisVedanta,andVedantaalonethatcanbecometheuniversalreligionofman,andthatnootherisfittedfortherole(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.182).

Ofcourse,onecouldmakealegitimateargument,ashasbeendonerepeatedlyin

previouschapters,thattermslike‘inclusive’,‘exclusive’and‘pluralist’areWestern,

ChristocentrictermsthatarebeingappliedtoVivekananda.SumitSarkarseemsto

241

anticipatethisallegationbyarticulatinghowVivekananda’smethodscanbeinterpreted

usingtheHinduconceptofadhikari-bhedawhichSarkardescribesinsomedetail:

immensecatholicity,goingalongwithfirmlyconservativemaintenanceofrulesappropriateforeachlevel,jati,orsampraday(community),whichareallconceivedashavingaplaceinamultiplicityoforthopraxies.Adhikari-bhedahademergedasaformaldoctrineintheseventeenth-eighteenthcenturyasahigh-Brahmanicalwayofaccommodatingdifferenceinphilosophy,beliefandritual.Aparticularapplicationofitwastheconceptofsmartapanchopasana–theequalvalidityandorthodoxyofdevotiontoGanapati,Vishnu,Siva,Shakti,andSurya.Theroots,perhapsgomuchfurtherback,tothenotion,basictoHinduconceptsofhierarchyandcaste,ofeachhumangrouphavingitssvadharma(one’sownreligiouspath)(2014,p.188).

However,likemosttermsofthiskind,Sarkarisquicktohighlightthatthereare

differentinterpretationsofthisconceptthatarerelevant:

Adhikari-bhedaisopentosomewhatdifferentimplications,dependingonwhetherlookedupon‘frombelow’or‘fromabove’.Adhikari-bhedacatholicityhasallowedtheformationandsurvivalofamultitudeofpracticesandbeliefs,numeroussampradayaswithafluidityandopennessintheirinitialphaseswhichmakesevenclassificationasHinduorMuslimnotalwayseasy(2014,p.188).

Unfortunately,sometimesthisideologycanalsobeinterpretedinalessthanexemplary

manner:

Catholicity,groundedinadhikari-bheda,canalsohaveanoppositethrust.Inofficial,high-castedoctrine,adhikari-bhedaoftenbecomessynonymouswith,notfluidityoropenness,butneatcompartmentalization,thedrawing-upofmoredefiniteboundaries,andthearrangementofthevariousphilosophies,rituals,beliefsandsampradayasinafixedhierarchyculminatinginhigh-BrahmanpracticesandAdvaitaVedantistphilosophy(Sarkar,2014,p.189,emphasisadded).

WhatSarkardoeshereistodescribeaclassificationstructurewhichcanbecompared

tothe‘exclusive,inclusive,pluralist’systemusedbycontemporaryscholarsusing

Westernterminology.Notsurprisingly,boththesemethodsofclassificationarriveata

similarverdict:

InVivekananda,weshallsee,thetransitionwouldbecompleted,withVedantajnanafirmlyplacedattheapexofasingle,well-definedhierarchy.ThiswasaccompaniedbyamuchsharperdefinitionofdividinglinesbetweenHinduandotherreligioustraditions(Sarkar,2014,p.190).

242

ItisimperativethatwenoteherethatVivekanandawasnotonlyrelegatingother

historicaltraditionstoalowerrung,butalsotheotherHindutraditionsthatare

associatedwiththesrutisandthemanyincarnationsofthedivine.However,hetakes

painstocreateadistinctionbetweenbhaktiinitshighestform,whereitispurelovefor

thedivine,versusbhaktiinitsorthopraxisform,whichinvolvessymbolsandimages

andrituals.Thedifferenceseemssubtlebutinreality,itisnot.Thebhaktithat

Vivekanandaacceptsasagoodandequallyvalidpathtothedivineiscompleteandutter

surrender:

Healonehasattainedthesupremestateoflovecommonlycalledthebrotherhoodofman;therestonlytalk.Heseesnodistinctions;themightyoceanoflovehasenteredintohim,andheseesnotmaninman,butbeholdshisBelovedeverywhere.ThrougheveryfaceshinestohimhisHari.ThelightinthesunorthemoonisallHismanifestation.Whereverthereisbeautyorsublimity,tohimitisallHis…Suchmenalonehavetherighttotalkofuniversalbrotherhood(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,p.76).

Anythinglessthanthatwasjustnotgoodenough;“Templesorchurches,booksor

forms,aresimplythekindergartenofreligion,tomakethespiritualchildstrongenough

totakehighersteps”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.43,emphasisadded).Basically,

VivekanandaisrelegatingalltheHinduswhoareorthopraxictoalowerrealm,

indicatingthattheyhavenotyetrealizedthattheyneedtogiveupalltheirritualsand

images.WhatVivekanandadoeswiththeseargumentsofhis,whichareextremely

skilful,isacceptthatbhakti,alaRamakrishna,isanexaltedpathbutatthesametime

arguethatthebhaktithatmillionsofHinduspractice,whicharewrappedupinbellsand

ritualsandlentils,arealesserway.VivekanandaisnotthefirstIndiantomakesuch

proclamations.AfterallthisistheAdvaitinpath.However,whatmakeshisdeclarations

problematicisthathisconceptualizationofHindutraditionshasbecomesowidespread

thattheyhaveinfluenced,andcontinuetoinfluence,theHindupsyche.Indeed,agreat

numberofHindusactuallyascribetothishierarchy.Perhapsapersonalanecdotewill

243

helpclarifymypointhere.Istillrememberwhen,afewyearsago,Iwasaskedbya

studentifIbelievedinaSagunaBrahmanoraNirgunaBrahman.IrespondedthatIwas

adevoteeofKrishnaandassuchascribedtoaSagunaBrahman.However,evenbeforeI

realizedwhatIwassaying,IcontinuedbyacknowledgingthatacceptanceofaNirguna

BrahmanwasahigheridealandonethatIwasworkingmywaytowards.Withastart,I

acknowledgedthatIhadinternalizedtheemphasisonthesuperiorityofAdvaita

Vedanta,Ihadinternalizedthishierarchy.

Ofcourse,VivekanandadoesnotlimitthishierarchytoHindutraditions.Hegoes

on,aswehavealreadyseeninsomeofthequotescitedabove,aswellasinthechapter

basedonhisspeechesattheParliament,toarguethatVedantawasthehighestpath,

supersedingallothertraditions.Mostofhiscommentsareshroudedinthecloakof

inclusivity,which,aswehavealreadyseen,isaproblematicstancewhenspeakingof

othertraditions.OneofthetacticsthatVivekanandausedtoincludeothertraditions

undertheHinduumbrellawasacallfora‘universalreligion’.Heusedamulti-pronged

approachtoaccomplishthis.Ontheonehand,hepraisedcertainaspectsofother

traditionsandclaimedthatthesetraitsdeservedtobeemulated.Ontheotherhand,he

criticizedthemsayingthattheyhadflawsthatcouldonlybeovercomebyadopting

Advaitaprinciples.Theultimategoal,accordingtoVivekananda,wastoidentifya

‘universalreligion’thatwouldbesuitableforallhumanity.

Needlesstosay,thesearchforuniversalsisanancientone.Accordingto

McEvilley:

Thefirstphilosophicalquestion,“TheProblemoftheOneandtheMany,”expressesthesameorderingimpulsethatfueledtheobsessionwithastronomyandgeometry–thedesiretofindunifyingprinciplesbehindapparentdiversity.Itisalsoanattempttojustifytheclaimsforcertaintyofknowledgethatthemathematicallybasedsciencesinspired.Ifthingsaredifferentandseparate,thentheuniverseatlargeisunknowablesinceonlyspecificthingsmaybe“known,”oneatatime.ThepreoccupationwithTheProblemoftheOneandtheMany

244

expressedadesiretoknowtheuniverseinsomelargersensethanthat,byfindingprincipleswhichwouldrendereverysituationknowablewithorwithoutdirectexperienceofit.Superficialdiversitywastobetamedandmadeknowablebyapprehensionofunderlyingunity(2002,p.24).

Indeed,McEvilleyquotesAristotlewhoarguesthatPlato’sTheoryofFormsisbasedon

theexpressedneedtofindsuchunifyingsymbols:

“Essentialreality[forPlato]istheOne,”saysAristotle;“theFormsaretheessentialcauseofallotherthings,andtheOneistheessentialcauseoftheForms”(ascitedinMcEvilley,2002,p.157).

Accordingly,Vivekanandawasjustanothervoicetryingtofindawaytomakehis

ideologyapplicabletotheworldatlarge.Ironically,hisargumentsfordescribinghis

ideaofa‘universalreligion’areratherfragmented,apointthatArvindSharma

articulatesinTheConceptsofUniversalReligioninModernHinduThought(1998):

Vivekananda’sconceptofuniversalreligionischaracterizedbyacertainmeasureoffluidity.Sometimesheusesthetermuniversalreligiontoemphasizethemultiplicityofreligions;sometimestheeternalityofreligion;sometimesthecomplementarityofreligions;atothertimes,thehumanityofreligions;yetagain,theharmonyofreligions;andyetagain,theunityofreligions.SometimesheevendiscussesthepossibilityofVedantaasauniversalreligion.EventhisdescriptiondoesnotexhaustthewaysinwhichVivekanandaworkswiththeconceptofuniversalreligion,forsometimesheproceedstoidentifyitwithhisownversionofanidealreligionaswell(1998,p.54).

WhatSharmaisreferringto,whenhetentativelystatesthat“sometimesheeven

discussesthepossibilityofVedantaasauniversalreligion”isalecturethatVivekananda

gavetitled“IsVedantatheFutureReligion?”Here,Vivekanandaseemstoberesignedto

theideathathisvisionofAdvaitabecomingthe‘universalreligion’wasadreamthat

mightneverbefulfilled:

Unlesssocietychanges,howcansuchareligionasVedantaprevail?Itwilltakethousandsofyearstohavelargenumbersoftrulyrationalhumanbeings.Itisveryhard.Itisveryhardtoshowmennewthings,togivethemgreatideas.Itisharderstilltoknockoffoldsuperstitions,veryhard;theydonotdieeasily(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,p.136).

245

Whatalsobecomesabundantlyclear,whenonereadsthemanywaysthatVivekananda

speaksof‘universalreligion’,isthathewasamanonamission.Amissionhedoubted

hewouldbeabletosucceedin,butonewhichhewas,nevertheless,goingtoattemptno

mattertheconsequences.Accordingly,eventhoughherepeatedlyclaimedthathewas

nottryingtocreateahierarchy,hecontinuallyelevatedVedantabyadvocatingthatit

wasthemostviableoptionfora‘universalreligion’.Itmustbenotedhowever,that

SharmadisagreessincehearguesthatasfarasVivekanandaisconcerned:

Vedantamaybetheeternalreligionbutitwasunlikely,that,inthenearfuture,itwasgoingtobethemanifestuniversalreligion.Itremainedpotentiallyandideallyuniversalinthesensethatitupheldtheunityofallexistence,butwhethersuchunitywouldeverberealizedinpracticedefiesprediction(1998,p.64,emphasisinoriginal).

Thus,Sharmaconcludes,“theteachingsofhis[Ramakrishna’s]discipleVivekananda

couldbereducedtothemotto:‘Advaiticpreferencesbutnoexclusion’(1998,p.72).

Similarly,BasualsoarguesagainstVivekananda’sintenttocreateahierarchy:

Vivekanandatriesvariousprinciples,religious,social,andspiritual,fortheconstructionoftheHinduidentity.Whatisimplicitintheargumentisthatdifferenceswillcontinuetoexistbuthierarchiesmustbeabolished(2002,p.79).

However,inmyopinion,eventhoughVivekanandadoessaythatotherreligious

traditionsmustbeallowed,nayencouraged,tocoexistsidebyside,hisunderlying

messageisthattheyneedtoexistbecausehumanityisnotyetcapableofovercoming

suchdifferences.OnlyAdvaitins,likehimself,canseetheunityofcreation.And,assuch,

ahierarchyiscreated.Eventhoughitisevidentthatthisattitudeofhisseemstocoexist

uncomfortablywithhisalteregothatcelebratesothertraditions.

Forexample,VivekanandagaveatalkattheParliamentonBuddhismeven

thoughhehadbefriendedAnagarikaDharmapalawhowastherepresentativefor

BuddhisminChicago.Assuch,onecouldargue,thattherewasnoreasonfor

VivekanandatogiveaspeechonBuddhisttraditions.Nevertheless,notonlydidhe

246

choosetogivealectureontheBuddhaandhisteachingsattheParliamentbuthealso

wentontospeakaboutBuddhismonmultipleoccasionswhilehewasoverseas.Whatis

evenmoreproblematicisthatontheonehand,VivekanandaappropriatedBuddhist

ideasandincorporatesthemintoVedanticideology.Ontheotherhand,healsowenton

tocriticizethecontemporaryfollowersofBuddhismbyclaimingthattheydidnot

understandtheteachingsoftheirfounder.90ConsideringthatBuddhismsurvived,and

indeeddominated,theIndianreligiouslandscapeforclosetoathousandyears,this

flippantdisregardforitsIndianhistorycouldbeinterpretedasthelanguageusedby

victorswhenspeakingofthepeopletheyhavevanquished.Thus,accordingto

Vivekananda:

Inspiteofitswonderfulmoralstrength,Buddhismwasextremelyiconoclastic;andmuchofitsforcebeingspentinmerelynegativeattempts,ithadtodieoutinthelandofitsbirth,andwhatremainedofitbecamefullofsuperstitionsandceremonials,ahundredtimescruderthanthoseitwasintendedtosuppress.AlthoughitpartiallysucceededinputtingdowntheanimalsacrificesoftheVedas,itfilledthelandwithtemples,images,symbolsandbonesofsaints(Vivekananda,2009,vol.4,p.326).

Eventuallyhesurmises:

extremeadaptabilityinthelongrunmadeIndianBuddhismlosealmostallitsindividuality,andextremedesiretobeofthepeoplemadeitunfittocopewiththeintellectualforcesofthemotherreligioninafewcenturies.TheVedicpartyinthemeanwhilegotridofagooddealofitsmostobjectionablefeatures,asanimalsacrifice,andtooklessonsfromtherivaldaughterinthejudicioususeofimages,templeprocessionsandotherimpressiveperformances,andstoodreadytotakewithinherfoldthewholeempireofIndianBuddhism,alreadytotteringtoitsfall(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,pp.162-163).

ItisobviousthatforVivekananda,Buddhisttraditions,morethanJainorSikhtraditions

wereathreattohisargumentfortheancientandauthenticbrahmanicrootsofVedanta.

90ForadetailedstudyonVivekananda’sengagementwithBuddhism,seeSharma(2014)and(Brekke,2002).

247

Heknewthatthesetraditionshadasharedhistoryofideasandwantedtoascertainthat

therewasnoambiguityastowherethecreditforVedantistidealsmustlie:

Ourancientphilosophersknewwhatyoucallthetheoryofevolution;thatgrowthisgradual,stepbystep,andtherecognitionofthisledthemtoharmonisealltheprecedingsystems.Thusnotoneoftheseprecedingideaswasrejected.ThefaultoftheBuddhisticfaithwasthatithadneitherthefacultynortheperceptionofthiscontinualexpansivegrowth,andforthisreasonitneverevenmadeanattempttoharmoniseitselfwiththepreexistingstepstowardtheideal.Theywererejectedasuselessandharmful(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,pp.346-347).

Finally,hedeclares,“[p]resent-dayHinduismandBuddhismweregrowthsfromthe

samebranch.BuddhismdegeneratedandShankaraloppeditoff!”(Vivekananda,2009,

vol.6,p.120)

AsiftoaddinsulttoinjuryVivekanandaalsocontends;“Myreligionisoneof

whichChristianityisanoffshootandBuddhismarebelchild”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,

p.105).Wecansurmise,fromthisquote,thatVivekanandatakesasimilarapproach

whenspeakingofChristianity.AswesawinhisspeechesattheParliament,hebelieved

thatIndiawasthelandofspiritualityand‘Hinduism’wasthemotherofalltraditions.

Obviously,ChristianitywasnotexemptfromthisappraisalandVivekanandaargued,in

nouncertainterms,thatChristianitywithitsfoundationbuiltuponahistoricalfigure,

couldnotbeconsideredalegitimatecandidatefora‘universalreligion’:

Exceptingourownalmostalltheothergreatreligionsintheworldareinevitablyconnectedwiththelifeorlivesofoneormorefounders.Alltheirtheories,theirteachings,theirdoctrines,andtheirethicsarebuiltaroundthelifeofapersonalfounder,fromwhomtheygettheirsanction,theirauthorityandtheirpower;andstrangelyenough,uponthehistoricityofthefounder’slifeisbuilt,asitwere,allthefabricofsuchreligions.Ifthereisoneblowdealttothehistoricityofthatlife,ashasbeenthecaseinmoderntimeswiththelivesofalmostalltheso-calledfoundersofreligion–weknowthathalfofthedetailsofsuchlivesisnotnowseriouslybelievedin,andthattheotherhalfisseriouslydoubted–ifthisbecomesthecase,ifthatrockofhistoricity,astheypretendtocallit,isshakenandshattered,thewholebuildingtumblesdown,brokenabsolutely,nevertoregainitsloststatus(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.182-183).

Similarly:

248

Noreligionbuiltuponapersoncanbetakenupasatypebyalltheracesofmankind…HowisitpossiblethatonepersonasMohammedorBuddhaorChrist,canbetakenupastheonetypeforthewholeworld,nay,thatthewholeofmorality,ethics,spirituality,andreligioncanbetrueonlyfromthesanctionofthatoneperson,andonepersonalone?NowtheVedanticreligiondoesnotrequireanysuchpersonalauthority(Vivekananda,2009,vol.3,pp.250-251).

Whatisfascinatingisthatthisdidnotstophimfromcompletelyappropriatingaspects

ofChristianitythathefoundappealing.Forexample,SisterNiveditarecounts:

OnegathersthatduringhistravelsinCatholicEurope,hehadbeenstartled,likeothersbeforehim,tofindtheidentityofChristianitywithHinduisminathousandpointsoffamiliardetail.TheBlessedSacramentappearedtohimtobeonlyanelaborationoftheVedicprasadam.ThepriestlytonsureremindedhimoftheshavenheadoftheIndianmonk;andwhenhecameacrossapictureofJustinianreceivingtheLawfromtwoshavenmonks,hefeltthathehadfoundtheoriginofthetonsure.HecouldnotbutrememberthatevenbeforeBuddhism,Indiahadhadmonksandnuns,andthatEuropehadtakenherordersfromThebaid.Hinduritualhaditslights,itsincenseanditsmusic.Eventhesignofthecross,ashesawitpracticed,remindedhimofthetouchingofdifferentpartsofthebody,incertainkindsofmeditation.Andtheculminationofthisseriesofobservationswasreached,whenheenteredsomecathedral,andfounditfurnishedwithaninsufficientnumberofchairs,andnopews!Then,atlast,hewasreallyathome.HenceforthhecouldnotbelievethatChristianitywasforeign(Nivedita,1993,pp.229-230).

VivekanandaoscillatesbetweenadmirationforChristianityandhisdenigrationofits

beliefsthroughouthisadultlife.However,eventhoughhespokeoutagainstmost

religioustraditionsinhisinimical‘inclusive’way,Christianitywasthetraditionwith

whichheseemedtosufferthemostangst.Nodoubt,thiswasbecausehewasaproduct

ofcolonizationand,assuch,hadfeltthereverberationsofthis‘continentalcollision’

mostclosely.Accordingly,wefindthathefightsanintensebattlewithChristianity,a

battlewhichinterestingly,takesprecedenceovertheargumentshemadeagainstIslam.

Nandymakessomevaluableobservationsregardingthisprecedencewhich,hebelieves,

ChristianitytookinVivekananda’sarguments.Inhisessay,“Vivekanandaand

Secularism”(2014)Nandycontends:

BythetimeVivekanandaenteredthescene,theWesthadmadedeeperinroadsintothemindsofIndians.Tohim,therefore,therealthreatwastheWestwithin,

249

particularlytheattractivenessofChristianityandBrahmoismtotheyoungbabus,ratherthanthecolonialsystem.Vivekanandainthissensewasdealingwithmoredividedmenandwasperhapshimselfamoredividedman(2014,p.292).

NandyreiteratesthatVivekanandacouldnevercommitfullytotheideathathewas

playingapoliticalrolewhenhewasfindingwaystouniteIndians.Instead,Vivekananda

insistedthathisrolewaslimitedtothespiritualarenawhich,inturn,resultedinhis

ignoringtheimportanceofidentifyingIslam,notChristianity,asthetraditionwith

whichhisHindubrethrenmostneededtofindcommonground:

Perhapsbecauseofthecareerhechoseforhimself,Vivekanandaalwaysremainedassociatedwiththeearlierreligion-as-key-sectormodel.NowhereisthismoreobviousthaninthelowemphasiswhichheplacedonHindu-MuslimrelationsasacrucialproblemofIndiansecularism.Becausehewas,paradoxically,ahighlypoliticalanimalanddeeplysensitivetothecolonialsituation,thebasicinter-religiousrelationshiptohimwasalwaysthatbetweenHinduismandChristianity.(Brahmoism,hisotherbêtenoire,wastohimvirtuallyanoffshootofChristianity.)ThatiswhyhespentmostofhistimedemonstratingthesupremacyofVedantaovertheJudeo-Christiansystem,notoverIslam(Nandy,2014,p.292).ThisdoesnotimplythatVivekanandahadnothingtosayaboutIslam,hemost

certainlydid;hejustwasn’tasvociferousinhiscriticismofthem.Aswehavealready

observed,heincludedIslamtothecategoryofhistoricaltraditionswhich,asfaras

Vivekanandawasconcerned,werebuiltonshakyfoundationsandcouldbeundermined

atanytime.Unfortunatelyhowever,hedidnotstoptherewithhisnegativeremarks:

TheMohammedanreligionallowsMohammedanstokillallwhoarenotoftheirreligion.ItisclearlystatedintheKoran,“KilltheinfidelsiftheydonotbecomeMohammedans.”Theymustbeputtofireandsword(Vivekananda,2009,vol.2,p.335).

Ontheotherhand,healsobelievedthatthebrotherhoodthatIslamadvocatedwasone

thatHindusneededtoaspiretowards:

Forourownmotherlandajunctionofthetwogreatsystems,HinduismandIslam–VedantabrainandIslambody–istheonlyhope

250

Iseeinmymind’seyethefutureperfectIndiarisingoutofthischaosandstrife,gloriousandinvincible,withVedantabrainandIslambody(Vivekananda,2009,vol.6,p.416).WhatshouldbeapparentbythispointinourdiscussionisthatVivekanandawas

intentoncreatinga‘universalreligion’inIndia.A‘universalreligion’whichmayhave

includedallothertraditions,butataheavyprice.Nodoubt,hebelievedhewasbeing

bothtolerantandall-embracingbutoftentimeshislanguagebelieshisintended

message.Thisisevidentinthemanywayshearguedforthecontinuedexistenceof

alternatetraditions;anexistencethatwasnottobeconfusedwithcompleteparity.At

timesoneactuallybelievesthathewascommittedtobeingunbiasedandrespectful.At

others,thereisnowaytofindapositivewaytointerprethismessage.Indeed,thereare

toomanyinstanceswherehiswordsarefilledwithintolerantsubtext.Consequently,

Nandysurmisesthatthereexistsa‘crucialdichotomy’inthemessagesofVivekananda

andthemissionhefounded:

Theygrantedtheequalityofallreligions,butinaspecialsense.TheyconceivedHinduismasconsistingoftwosubsystems:theHindudharmaasasystemofactionandtheVedanticmetaphysicsasasystemofthought.TheywerequitewillingtoequateHindudharmawithotherdharmas.Afterall,allpathsledtoGodandifsomebodychosealong-windedorinferiorpaththatwashisbusiness.ButtheHindumetaphysicalsystem,whichwasconsideredtobeaboveandbeyondHindudharmaandasummationoftheprinciplesofuniversallawsandgodliness,wasconsideredtobesuperiortoallothers.Inotherwords,theyintroducedtheconceptofhierarchyintoHindumetaphysicsandtheconceptofequityintoHinduinstitutions.Asatechniqueofchange,thishaditshandicapsinasystemwhichthrivedonideologicalflexibilityandinstitutionalrigidity.Besides,inthisformulation,theverytoleranceofHinduismbecameproofofitsmetaphysicalsuperiority.Asacorollary,thenon-Hindu’sfearofbeingengulfedorofbeingfittedintotheHinduhierarchybecameanindicatorofhismetaphysicalpoverty(2014,p.293).SohowdotheRSSandtheSanghParivarusetheseideastofurthertheircause?

Nowhereistheiremphasisontheseissuesmoreapparentthanintheirwaron

textbooksandscholarswhohavealternate,opposingopinions.Thisiswherewemust

turnourattentionnext.

251

TheWaroftheTextbooks

OneofthemostacrimoniousbattlesthattheRSShasfought,andcontinuesto

fight,overthelastfewdecadeshashadtodowithtextbooks,andinparticularhistory

textbooks,thatareusedinprimaryandsecondaryeducationacrosstheIndian

subcontinent.Inthe1970’s,whenMorarjiDesai,oftheJanataParty,becamethePrime

MinisterofIndiahegotembroiledinthe‘Textbookcontroversy’.Desaihadrisento

powerwiththehelpofacoalitiongovernmentwhichincludedtheBharatiyaJana

Sangha(precursortotheBJP).Assuch,hecouldnotaffordtoignorethisissuewhich

wasevidentlycrucialtotheRSSwhohadalreadybegunmakinginroadsintothe

educationalsystemofruralIndia:

MorarjiDesaiirevealedtheintensityofhisHindutraditionalistoutlookinthe‘TextbookControversy’.InMay1977,hereceivedananonymousmemorandumdemandingthewithdrawalfrompubliccirculationoffourhistorybooks,ofwhichthreewereintendedforuseinteaching.ThebooksinquestionwereMedievalIndia,byRomilaThapar,ModernIndia,byBipanChandra,Freedom

Struggle,byA.Tripathi,BarunDeandBipanChandra,andCommunalismandtheWritingofIndianHistory,byRomilaThapar,HarbansMukhiaandBipanChandra.ThememorandumcriticisedtheworksaboveallfornotcondemningforcefullyenoughcertainMusliminvadersintheMedievalperiodandbecausetheyemphasizedtheresponsibilityofleaderslikeTilakandAurobindoforantagonismbetweentheHindusandMuslims.TheRSScampaignedseparatelyforthewithdrawalofthesetextbooks(Jaffrelot,1996,pp.287-288).

Furthermore,thisgovernmentwasencouraged,andeventuallyobliged,bytheir

coalition,tolendtheirsupporttoanalternateorganization,theBharatiyaVidyaBhavan,

“whichhadpublishedaHistoryandCultureoftheIndianPeopleunderthedirectionof

R.C.Majumdar,theveteranofIndiannationalisthistoriographywhosepro-Hindubias

wasallegedlybecomingmorepronounced”(Jaffrelot,1996,p.288).However,theJanata

Partydidnotstayinpowerlongenoughtoeffectanypermanentchangetothe

educationalsystematafederallevel.Ontheotherhand,theRSStookeducationvery

252

seriously,muchlikeVivekananda,andstartedagrassrootsprogramwhichenabled

themtospreadtheirbrandofHindunationalism:

TheexpansionoftheRSSeducationalsectorwasalsoashrewdmovegiventhegrowingdemandforeducationandthereluctanceofsomecitizenstorelyontheill-managedandunderfundedpublicsystem.VidyaBharti(‘Indianknowledge’),theRSSaffiliateandumbrellabodywhichrunstheSaraswatiShishuMandirs,wasresponsibleformanaging700suchschoolsin1977,theyearofitsfoundation.Bytheearly1990’stheorganisationhad5,000schools(1,325ofwhichwereinUttarPradeshandabout1,000inMadhyaPradesh)with1.2millionpupilsenrolledand40,000teachersemployed.ShishuMandirsareincreasinglyrunningclassesaimedatthepoor(Jaffrelot,1996,p.531).

Consequently,itisnotsurprisingthatwhentheBJPcametopowerin1998,education

wasoneoftheareaswheretheyfocusedtheirattention.Accordingly,SylvieGuichard

statesinTheConstructionofHistoryandNationalisminIndia:Textbooks,controversies

andpolitics(2010):

Shortlyafteritformedthegovernmentcoalitionin1998,theHindunationalistBJPannouncedthateducationshouldbe‘Indianised,nationalizedandspiritualised’.NewsubjectswereintroducedattheuniversitylevelsuchasastrologyandVedicmathematicsandtheentireschoolcurriculumwasoverhauled.Immediately,journalists,researchersandmembersofnon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)severelycriticizedthesereformsandaccusedtheBJPofattemptingto‘saffronize’education.Afterthechangeincurriculum,theNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining(NCERT),whichisthefederalinstitutioninchargeofelaboratingcurricula,syllabiandtextbooks,preparednewtextbooksforprimaryandsecondaryclasses.Publiccriticismofthenewcurriculumfocusedinparticularonthehistorytextbooks,pointingattheideologicalbiastheycontained.Themainaccusationsconcernedhistoricaldistortionsbywayofpurposefulomissionofimportantandmeaningfulhistoricaleventsfromthetextbooks,thestigmatizationoftheMuslimsasthemaincauseofIndia’smisfortunesandthegeneralglorificationofeverythingrelatedtoHinduism(Guichard,2010,pp.1-2).

WhatensuedwasabattlethatisstillongoingbetweentheRSSandtheso-calledliberals

whodisagreewiththem.

OneofthemajorissuesthattheSanghParivarhasagainstthesetextbooks,that

werefirstpublishedinthe1960’s,isthattheyareintenselysecular.‘Secular’isanother

253

termthathasmultipleconnotationsandneedstobeunpackedbeforewecanproceed.

AmartyaSenoffersaclearandconcisedefinitionofIndiansecularism:

SecularismincontemporaryIndia,whichreceivedlegislativeformulationinthepost-independenceconstitutionoftheIndianRepublic,containsstronginfluencesofIndianintellectualhistory,includingthechampioningofintellectualpluralism.OnereflectionofthishistoricalconnectionisthatIndiansecularismtakesasomewhatdifferentformandmakesratherdifferentdemandsfromthemoreaustereWesternversions,suchastheFrenchinterpretationofsecularismwhichissupposedtoprohibitevenpersonaldisplayofreligioussymbolsorconventionsinstateinstitutionsatwork.Indeed,therearetwoprincipalapproachestosecularism,focusingrespectivelyon(1)neutralitybetweendifferentreligions,and(2)prohibitionofreligiousassociationsinstateactivities.Indiansecularismhastendedtoemphasizeneutralityinparticular,ratherthanprohibitioningeneral(2005,pp.19-20).

However,Hindunationalistshavebeenaccusingthefederalgovernmentofnotactually

practicingsecularismbutratherchargesthemwithbeing‘pseudosecularists’.This

allegationismeanttohighlighthowthegovernment,ledbytheCongressparty,made

certainconcessionsforminorities,particularlytheMuslimcommunity.Theyare

referringtothefactthatSharialawcontinuestobeallowedintheIndianPenalCode

whichdelineateslawsderivedfromtheKoranandtheHadith.Jaffrelotpointsoutthat

theRSSareparticularlyopposedtothepoliciesconcerningmarriageanddivorcewhich

theyargueshouldbeuniversalforallIndiansinasecularstate:

Ironically,HindunationalistshavealwayslookedatthemselvesasmoresincereseculariststhanhaveCongressmen.TheydenouncedtheCongressPartyas‘pseudo-secular’becauseofitsbiasinfavourofreligiousminorities.Asearlyasthe1950stheSanghParivarcriticizedtheHinduCodeBillwhichreformedHinducustomsofmarriage,adoptionandinheritance,whereastheshariatandthepersonallawsofotherreligiousminoritiesremaineduntouched.Thisissueresurfacedinthe1980sduringwhatisknownastheShahBanoaffair,whentheCongresswasaccusedofpamperingitsMuslimvotebankbyreaffirmingthestatusoftheshariatinregulatingtheprivatesphereofthisminority(Jaffrelot,2007,p.313).AccordingtoL.K.Advani,whoisoneoftheleadingvoicesfortheRSS,these

‘pseudo-secularists’havetriedtosuppresstheHinduethosofthenation,anactionthat

hasnegatedtheverycharacterofthispredominantlyHindunation.Hereminds

254

listenersthatGandhihadrepeatedlycalledfor‘RamaRajya’(amoralkingdomworthy

oftheHindugodRam)and,assuch,hadneverdeniedhisHinduroots.Incontrast,he

arguesinthe“TheAyodhyaMovement”:

Unfortunately,forfourdecadesnow,inthenameofsecularism,politicianshavebeenwantingthenationtodisownitsessentialpersonality.Fortheleftinclined,secularismhasbecomeaeuphemismtocloaktheirintenseallergytoreligion,andmoreparticularly,toHinduism(ascitedinJaffrelot,2007,p.292).

Advani’sstatementsagainstthepoliticianswhohelabels‘pseudo-secularists’donot

disguisehisprimarymotives,whichclearlyargueforIndiatobeunabashedly

recognizedasaHindunation:

TheBJPisunequivocallycommittedtosecularism.AsconceivedbyourConstitutionmakers,secularismmeantsarvapanthasamabhava,thatisequalrespectforallreligions.SecularismasembeddedintotheIndianConstitutionhasthreeimportantingredients,namely(i)rejectionoftheocracy;(ii)equalityofallcitizens,irrespectiveoftheirfaith;and(iii)fullfreedomoffaithandworship.WealsobelievethatIndiaissecularbecauseitispredominantlyHindu.Theocracyisalientoourhistoryandtradition.Indiannationalismisrooted,aswasIndia’sfreedomstruggleagainstcolonialism,inaHinduethos.ItwasGandhijiwhoprojectedRamaRajyaasthegoalofthefreedommovement.HewascriticizedbytheMuslimLeagueasbeinganexponentofHinduRaj.TheLeaguedidnotrelishthechantingofRamDhunatGandhiji’smeetingsorhisinsistenceonGoraksha(cow-protection).TheMuslimLeagueatoneofitsannualsessionspassedaformalresolutiondenouncingVandeMataramas‘idolatrous’.Allthisnevermadeleadersofthefreedomstruggleapologeticaboutthefountainheadoftheirinspiration(ascitedinJaffrelot,2007,pp.291-292).

Ofcourse,Advani’ssympathiesarenosecretsinceheisoneofthearchitectsofthe

Ramjanmabhumimovement,whichdemolishedtheBabriMasjidinAyodhya.An

unprecedentedactofviolenceagainstaminoritytraditioninrecentIndianhistory.As

such,hisproclamationthatheisatruesecularistandisnotcallingforatheocracydoes

notringtrue.

Unfortunatelyhowever,thehistorianswhowrotethefirstsetoftextbooksthat

arebeingchallenged,inthe1960’s,wereintentonbuildinganationoutofamosaicof

communities.Assuch,theymayhavebeenoverzealousintheirattempttodiminishthe

255

existenceofdifferences,preferringinsteadtoaccentuatethesimilaritiesbetweenthese

groups:

writingadecadeafterindependenceandpartition,thetextswereshapedbytheintellectualclimateofthetime.Troubledbythememoriesofcommunalcarnageandthetraumaticexperienceofthepartitionyears–whenthousandsofHindusandMuslimskilledeachother–theintellectualsofthisnewIndiastruggledtocreateasecularanddemocraticpublicculture.Inspiredbytheidealsofdemocraticcitizenship,theyhopedforasocietywhereindividuals,emancipatedfromtheirreligiousandaffectiveties,wouldberebornassecularcitizensofademocraticstate.Historiansturnedtothepasttocountercommunalrepresentationsofhistory,questioncommunalstereotypesandwriteasecularnationalhistory.Thehistorytextbookswritteninthe1960’sembodiedthissecularideal(Bhattacharya,2009,p.102).

RomilaThapar,whowasoneoftheauthorsofthesetextbooksofferssomeinsightinto

thethoughtprocessesthatwentintowritingthesetexts:

Thehistoryof‘thenation’alsobecameafocus.Wasthenationacreationofthecolonialexperience?Ordiditemergefromfactorsrelatedtomodernizationsuchasthecomingofindustrializationandcapitalismaswellastheneedforademocraticandsecularsociety?Theissuewasnotjustoneofbuildingahistorywhichrequiredacommonhistory,memoryandculture,butalsoofexplainingthenatureofthesocietiesandeconomicsofthepastthatcontributedtothiscommonness(Thapar,2009,p.92).

However,otherhistorianshavearguedthatthisnotonlymisrepresentedthediverse

traditionsofIndia’spast91butalsogaveHindunationalistsasoapboxfromwhichto

attackthefederalgovernment’ssecularpolicies:

Thetextbooksofthe1960sandthe‘70sprovokedcontroversyfromthemomenttheywerepublished.TheHindurightinparticularwasimpassionedinitsattacks.Andforthenextthreedecades,whilethesetextbooksremainedinprint,controversiessurfacedoverandoveragainaroundasetofcoreissues(Bhattacharya,2009,p.102).Notsurprisingly,mostofthesecoreissues,whichtheHindunationalistsargued

against,hadtodowiththesecularrepresentationofIndianhistorywhichdeniedthe

91ForadetailedsurveyonthewayIndianhistorianscontinuetodiscussthecomplexitiesandramificationsofsecularisminIndiaseeNandy(1997)andNandy(1988)andThapar(2013).

256

notionwhichasked,“shouldtheIndianpastbeframedthroughreligiouscategories?”

(Bhattacharya,2009,p.102).Thisdenial,inturn,allowedthesecularhistorianstofocus

attentiononthesocial,economicandaestheticqualitiesofdifferenterasthereby

diminishingtheneedtoemphasizethenegativeimpactoftheMughalRaj.Furthermore,

thismethodofhistoriographyalsoundercuttheHinduright’sglorificationofancient

IndiawhichtheyattributedtothemasteryoftheVedicsages.Interestingly,Thapar

arguesthatthisviewofhistoryisactuallyaremnantofcolonialinterpretationswhich

theHindunationalistshave,ironically,adoptedastheirown:

Mindyou,theirownunderstanding–theHindutvaunderstandingofIndia–isrootedincolonialtheorieswhichtheytryandprojectasthe“indigenousunderstanding”oftheIndianpast.AmongthesearethetheoriesthatIndiancivilisationoriginatedwiththeVedas,thatofHindusandMuslimshavingbeenantagonistictowardseachother,andthatHinduswerevictimisedunderMuslimrule.Giventhesebeliefs,theobservancesoftheVedicAryanmodelofsocietyareadvocated,evenforcontemporarytimes–oratleastwhattheythinkwassuchamodel.AndrevengemustbesoughtforthetyrannyofMuslimrule.Theseareideasthatcomefromnineteenth-centurycolonialwritingandhavelittletodowithindigenousviews(TheCaravan,2016).Bethatasitmay,theSanghParivarcontinuestobedeeplyinvestedin

overturningthewaytheHindupastisrepresentedinthetextbooksthatthenext

generationofHindusarereading.InGujarat,whichisModi’shomestate,studentsare

usingbookswrittenbyDinaNathBatra“thefounderoftheShikshaBachaoAndolan

Samiti(SaveEducationFoundation)”whichbelongstotheSanghParivar(Krishnan,

2015).Batra,whoisresponsibleforbringingthecivilsuitagainstWendyDoniger’s

controversialbookTheHindus,beginsallhistextswith“asalutationtotheHindu

GoddessSaraswati,knownforknowledgeandwisdomandwillhaveessays,couplets,

storiesandpoemstoinculcateIndianvalues”(Krishnan,2015).Indeed,MichaelWitzel,

alongwithagroupofotherconsentingauthors,whoareresponsiblefortherecent

pushbackinthistextbookcontroversyargue:

257

ThecurriculumdesignedbytheNCF[TheNationalCurriculumFrameworkestablishedin1998bytheBJP]in2000andthetextbookspublishedayearlateralsointerchangedtherolesassignedtoscienceandspirituality.Theearlieremphasisonscience–seenasessentialtothecreationofarational,modern,andenlightenedsociety–wassupplantedinthenewframeworkbytheideaofauniqueanddistinctive“Indiantradition”basedonformulaicnotionsofspiritualityandreligionandaconservativesocialbias.Thenewframeworkwasseverelycriticizedforviolatingtheconstitutionalcommitmenttosecularismbyadvocatingtheideaofreligion-basedvalueeducationasacrucialfactorinthesyllabi.Valueeducation,however,wasintegraltotheNCF’splanitsmainplanktolaunchthespiritualandmoralrenewalofIndia.Itwasonlythroughlearningofthe“livesofprophets,saintsandthesacredtexts”thatchildrencouldachievehigherSQs(SpiritualQuotients)andEQs(EmotionalQuotients)(Visweswaran,etal.,2009,p.103).

Unfortunately,thistrendcontinuestospreadunderModi’sgovernmentsincein2015:

CultureMinisterMaheshSharmastatedunequivocallythattheBJP-ledgovernmentwillnotbedeterredbycriticismthatitwastryingtopromoteRSSideology.HisdepartmentisalreadychalkingoutaroadmapwherelessonsfromepicHinduliteraturesuchastheMahabharata,RamayanaandBhagavadGitawouldsoonbetaughtinschoolandcollegestoridthecountryof“culturalpollution”andinculcate“values”amongyoungminds(Krishnan,2015).

DrawinganexusbetweentheargumentsputforthbytheSanghParivarandthe

ideologyofVivekanandaisnotverydifficult.VivekanandaarguedrepeatedlythatIndia

wasgovernedbyitsspirituality.HealsoinsistedthattheVedicpasthadscientific

answersthatmodernmindshaveonlyrecently‘rediscovered’.Hemaynothavebeenas

aggressiveinhisdenunciationofIslam,ashewasofBuddhismandChristianity,but

Nandymayhavereasonwhenhearguesthatbyattackinganytraditionsoviciously

Vivekanandaactuallyleftthedooropenforotherstodothesame:

ItallowedonetoextendtoIslamVivekananda’sattitudetoChristianity.IftheSwamiattackedonereligiondidhenot,byimplication,thinkofotherreligionsinthesameterms?(2014,p.293)

Whatmakesmattersworseisthatthisbattleovertextbookshasspreadtothediaspora

wherebyHindunationalists,livingintheUnitedStates,havebegundemandingchanges

inthedepictionofIndiancultureinthetextbooksusedintheUnitedStates.Even

thoughtheywerenotsuccessfulintheirendeavours,thisactionshedslightonhowthe

258

RSShasgainedmomentumontheinternationalscene,wherebytheynowhavesupport

fortheirnationalisticeffortsfromthewealthy,educatedIndianslivinginthediaspora.

NowhereisthismoreevidentthaninthefactthateminentscholarssuchasWendy

Doniger,SheldonPollockandMichaelWitzel,92tomentionjustafew,haveallhadto

defendtheirrighttointerpretHindutraditions.Whatshouldbeevidentisthatthe

SanghParivar,likeVivekananda,arenotcomfortablewithanyargumentsortheories

thatimpedetheirworldviewwhichclearlyplacesHinduideologyattheapexofall

intellectualendeavours,pastandpresent.

MotherIndia:Chastebutfiery

Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,‘masculinity’ora‘manlynation’wereissues

thatwereofgreatimportancetoVivekananda.Naturally,thislanguageleadsoneto

questionwhereheplacedwomensincehewassoadamantthatIndianmencouldno

longeraffordtobe‘effeminate’.AccordingtoBasu,Vivekanandatriedtodistinguish

between‘effeminate’(whichwasviewednegatively)versus‘feminine’:

Inhisportrayalofthenationalheroasthegallant,masculine,andvaliantheevokedthecategoryofthefemininewithgreatingenuityinordertooutwitthechargesofanti-feminismthroughaconceptualstrategyofdistinguishingtheeffeminatefromthefeminine(2002,p.158).

Theseeffortsledtosomeinterestingcontradictionsinthe‘feminine’narrative,manyof

whichcontinuetoimpactthelivesofIndianwomentoday.Indeed,somescholarshave

92Forexamplesee,“WhyHindutvagroupshaveforlonghadSheldonPollockintheirsights”https://scroll.in/article/804517/why-hindutva-forces-have-for-long-had-sheldon-pollock-in-their-sights;“IamnotaHinduhater”http://m.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/30inter1.htm;and“IndianpublishersnervousabouttakingbooksthatmightoffendHindutva:WendyDoniger”https://www.google.com/amp/m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/indian-publishers-nervous-about-taking-books-that-might-offend-hindutva-wendy-doniger/amp_articleshow/50940104.cms?client=safari

259

arguedthattheroleofwomeninIndiansocietybecameoneofthemostcrucial

battlegroundsfornationalists,bothreformersandtraditionalists,inthenineteenthand

twentiethcentury.Forexample,inHinduWife,HinduNation(2010),TanikaSarkar

drawsattentiontothewaytheliteratureofthisperiodreflectedthistrend:

PatrioticthemescametoconstituteasignificantdomaininBengaliliteraturefromaboutthe1880’s,andthecorpuswentthroughmanydevelopmentsandmutationsdowntoGandhiantimes.Aconstantpreoccupationwaswiththefigureofthewoman.ShedominatesBengaliworksthroughtheconceptualisationofthecountryitselfinherimage;byinvestingtheidealpatriotwithwomanlyqualities;andbythereconstructionoffemininerolesandduties–and,consequently,ofthefamilialuniversebythenationalistenterprise(Sarkar,2010,p.250).

UmaChakaravarticoncurswithSarkar’sbasicpremisewhendiscussingtheworksof

nationalistleaderslikeBankimchandraChattopadhyayandDayanandSaraswati.

Accordingly,in“WhateverHappenedtotheVedicDasi?”(1990)shecontends:

Howmuchandwhataspectsoftraditionwentintotheconstructionofanewfeminineidentityvariedfromonewritertoanotherbutonmanyessentialstherewasconsiderablesimilarity;indeedtheconvergenceonthefundamentalcharacteristicsofHinduwomanhoodcutacrosstheliberal-revivalistdivide(Chakravarti,1990,p.52).

Whatisclearisthatinthenineteenthcenturywewitnessa‘continentalcollision’

whichhadreligious,socialandeconomicrepercussions.Indianintellectualshadbegun

topushbackagainstBritishcolonizationand,assuch,thecolonizersneededtoprove

thattheIndiansrequiredcolonialrulesincetheywereunfittogovernthemselves.One

exampleofawriterwhoputforththistheoreticalframeworkwasJamesMillsinThe

HistoryofBritishIndia(1840)wherebyhedebunkedtheprevious,morepositive,

Orientalistliterature,whichhadmarvelledatIndia’sVedicculture,declaringittobethe

‘goldenage’ofIndiancivilization.ItwasargumentsmadebyscholarssuchasMillsthat

leadsChakravartitoconclude:

ThedegenerationofHinducivilizationandtheabjectpositionofHinduwomen,requiringthe‘protection’and‘intervention’ofthecolonialstate,weretwo

260

aspectsofcolonialpolitics.Thethirdaspectwasthe‘effeminacy’oftheHindumenwhowereunfittorulethemselves.OnallthreecountsBritishruleinIndiacouldbejustifiedongroundsofmoralsuperiority(1990,p.35).

Infact,oneofthemainthrustsforreform,fromtheBritishRaj,concernedthestateof

womenandhowtheyweremistreated,particularlyviatheinstitutionofmarriage:

Aroundthistimenumerousreformbillsfocusedonmarriage.TheAgeofConsentcontroversy,debatesabouttheRestitutionofConjugalRightsandtheMarriageofWidowshadaccentuatedthe‘barbaric’practicesoftheHindusandthrownupquestionsaboutthenatureoftheconjugalitysuchunionsencouraged(Chowdhury,2014,p.389).

Thus,onecouldarguethatHindunationalistshadnochoicebuttorespondtothese

allegationsagainstthetreatmentofwomeninIndiansociety.Chakravartitraceshow

HinduslikeRammohanRoy,BankimchandraChattopadhyayandDayanandSaraswati

articulatetheirargumentsandcreateanewnarrativeforIndianwomen.Somuchso,

thatChakravarticoncludesthatthisresultedinthecultivationofapowerfulmyth,a

doxa,93thatcontinuestoinfluencetheroleofIndianwomeninsocietytoday:

Whatwasgraduallyandcarefullyconstituted,brickbybrick,intheinteractionbetweencolonialismandnationalismisnowsodeeplyembeddedintheconsciousnessofthemiddleclassesthatideasaboutthepasthaveassumedthestatusofrevealedtruths.Anysuggestionthatwemightfruitfullyanalysethemannerandthedifferentstagesbywhichthisbodyofknowledgewasbuiltup,orhowandwhenwecamebyourimmediateintellectualandculturalheritage(whichisoftenonlyahundredandfiftyyearsold)wouldthereforebeconsideredquiteunnecessaryorevenfutile.Butforwomeninparticularthisheritage,thisperceptionofthepast,ofthe‘lostglory’isalmostaburden.IthasledtoanarrowandlimitingcircleinwhichtheimageofIndianwomanhoodhasbecomebothashackleandarhetoricaldevicethatneverthelessfunctionsasahistoricaltruth(1990,p.28).

Unfortunately,ChakravartidoesnotspendmuchtimeanalysingVivekananda’srolein

thecreationofthisdoxasinceshebelievesthatbythetimehewaspopularthe

nationalistshadalready‘closedranks’andassuch“thereisnowomen’squestionfor

Vivekananda”(1990,p.78).However,seeingasVivekanandahasbecomesuchacrucial

93Foradetailedexplanationofthisterm‘doxa’seeChapter3.

261

elementintheHindutvamovement,andthathisbattlecryfora‘manly’nation

continuestobeused,itseemsimperativeforustounderstandthewayheinterpreted

theroleofwomeninIndia.

So,isChakravartirightinpresumingthatotherthanarguingfora‘manly’nation,

Vivekanandadidnotengagewiththequestionofwomen?Didwomennotfigureinhis

theoretical‘manly’nation?Vivekanandaseemedtohaveacomplexrelationshipwith

thefeminineprinciple.Ontheonehand,aswesawintheprevioussection,hedemoted

bhaktibecauseitwastoofeminine.Ontheotherhand,hewasadevoteeofKaliand

wrotepoemsdedicatedtoher.WhenaddressingtheroleofwomeninIndiahisanswers

werenotonlyambiguousandcomplex,butalso,oftentimesfilledwithachauvinistic

ideologythatcantakethereaderbysurprise.Indeed,simplyreadinghislecture

“WomenofIndia”whichhedeliveredin1900,onhissecondvisittotheUnitedStates,

leadstotherealizationthattheredefinitelywasa‘women’squestion’inVivekananda’s

visionofIndia.However,onejusthastoscratchthesurfacetorecognizethattheonly

conceptoffemininitythatVivekanandawascomfortablewith,andwhichheupheld,

wastheroleofthemother:

Now,theidealwomaninIndiaisthemother,themotherfirstandthemotherlast.ThewordwomancallsuptothemindoftheHindu,motherhood;andGodiscalledMother(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,p.57).

This,ofcourse,isnotanewconcept,butratheronethathadbeendeveloping

sinceRammohanRoyandhispeersbeganinvestigatingtherolethatwomenplayedin

theVedicage.ExamplessuchasGargiandMaitreyibecameverypopularsinceboth

werescholarlywomenwho,reportedly,hadnotonlyheldtheirown,butattimes

bested,theirVedicmalepeerswiththeirphilosophicalacumen(Chakravarti,1990,

pp.33,43).However,itwaswithDayanandSaraswatithatwewitnessthewaytheideal

Hinduwomanbecomes‘sacralized’intheroleofthemother.Interestingly,itwasnot

262

onlytheHinduwoman,butalsotheHindunationthatwasseenasareflectionofthe

feminineprincipleandwasidolizedasthe‘Motherland’.TanikaSarkaremphasizeshow,

eventhoughthisisarelativelynewphenomenon,ithasbecomeanideology,adoxaif

youwill,thatisirrefutableinthemodernHindu’sworldview:

ThefirstsuchprincipleandculturalartefactistheconceptoftheMotherland–Deshmata.Asisusualwithothernationalistdiscourses,thecountryisnotjustapieceoflandwithpeoplelivingonit.ItisabstractedfromthepeopleandpersonifiedastheMotherGoddess,themostrecentandmostsacreddeityintheHindupantheon.Thepeople,then,arenotthe‘desh’itself,butaresonsoftheMother–detachedfromanimaginedentityandputinasubordinaterelationtoit.Throughlongandcontinuoususagethisconcepthasacquiredsuchaseemingnaturalnessthatitsdisjunctionasaculturalconstructisworthemphasizing(2010,p.251).

AsfarasDayanandSaraswatiwasconcerned,Hinduwomenneededtodoalltheycould

toprovidetheMotherlandwithstrongandvirilesonswhocouldprotectthenation:

WhatwascentraltoDayananda’sthinkingwashisunderstandingoftheroleofwomeninthemaintenanceofrace,andinter-alia,concernabouttheirsexuality.MotherhoodforDayanandawasthesolerationaleofwoman’sexistencebutwhatwascrucialinhisconceptofmotherhoodwasitsspecificroleintheprocreationandrearingofaspecialbreedofmen(Chakravarti,1990,p.56).

Bankimchandra,ontheotherhand,strovetocreateanimageofaHinduwomanwho

couldstandshouldertoshoulderwithherhusbandtofightforfreedomfromcolonial

oppression.Accordingly,inhismostacclaimednovelAnandmath(1882),

BankimchandrapresentedanewrevisedversionoftheperfectHinduwoman.Itwasno

longersufficientforawomantobealoyalpartnertoherhusbandinhisreligious

activities,norwasitenoughforhertobeintellectuallyadvancedlikeGargiand

Maitreyi:

Externallyandinternallythethreatenedmoralandsocialorderdesperatelyrequiredanewkindofwomanforwhichtheoldsahadharmini[partnerinreligiousduties]modelwastoopassiveandcouldonlyapplyonceorderhadbeenre-established.Aravagednationrequiredheroicactionfrombothmenandwomen;ifanythingitwaswomenwhocouldactuallyreleasethepotentialforsuchaction.Itwasthereforeincumbentuponthemtoenergizemenwhomighteasilyfallintotemptationotherwise.Onlywomen,bycontrollingorsublimating

263

theirsexuality,couldreleasebothmenandwomenfortheselflesssacrificesrequiredfortheliberationoftheravagedmotherland.Bankimthusprovidedapowerfulimageofwomanhood,onethatdynamizedtheimageofasahadharminiofthepastintoaforceforthepresentandthefuture.Inthisaspectthetransformedwoman“defiedthenormalcanonsoffemininityinordertojointheresistanceagainstthecrisisintheorder(Chakravarti,1990,p.53).WhatisparticularlynoteworthyaboutVivekananda’sinteractioninthisongoing

debateisthathedidnotfallsquarelyintoanyofthesecamps.Instead,hearguedthat

thebestcourseofactionforallwomen,andallmenassociatedwiththem,wasto

encouragecelibacy.

For,mindyou,ourreligionteachesthatmarriageissomethingbad,itisonlyfortheweak.Theveryspiritualmanorwomanwouldnotmarryatall.Sothereligiouswomansays“Well,theLordhasgivenmeabetterchance.Whatistheuseofmarrying?ThankGod,worshipGod,whatistheuseofmylovingman?Ofcourse,allofthemcannotputtheirmindonGod.Somefinditsimplyimpossible.Theyhavetosuffer(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,pp.65-66).

Accordingly,hewasnotinterestedinthereproductiveroleofwomen,neitherdidhe

encourageanyofhisyoungmalefollowerstogetmarried.Rather,heencouragedone

andalltofollowthepathofthesanyasi,whilelabouringtoupliftthemasses.Thus,

whereasitistruethatVivekanandareveredthewomanintheroleofthemother,itwas

asachastemother,notareproducingone:

Woman!thoushaltnotbecoupledwithanythingconnectedwiththeflesh.Thenamehasbeencalledholyonceandforever,forwhatnameistherewhichnolustcaneverapproach,nocarnalityevercomenear,thantheonewordmother?ThatistheidealinIndia(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,p.58).

GivenhisnarrowmindedandrestrictiveideasregardingtheroleofwomeninIndian

societyitisnotsurprisingtolearnthatwomen’sissuesprovedtobesomewhatofa

thorninhisside.First,aswesawinthelastchapter,heenduredthewrathofthe

traditionalistswhenherefusedtospeakoutagainsttheAgeofConsentBill.However,

eventhoughhedidnotpubliclysidewiththetraditionalistsonthesematters,he

neverthelessmakeshisviewsonthesereformsabundantlyclear:

264

Inmyopinionsocietyineverycountryshapesitselfoutofitsowninitiative.Soweneednottroubleourheadsprematurelyaboutsuchreformsastheabolitionofearlymarriage,theremarriageofwidows,andsoon.Ourpartofthedutyliesinimpartingtrueeducationtoallmenandwomeninsociety.Asanoutcomeofthateducation,theywillofthemselvesbeabletoknowwhatisgoodforthemandwhatisbad,andwillspontaneouslyeschewthelatter.Itwillnotbethennecessarytopulldownorsetupanythinginsocietybycoercion(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,p.493).

Moreover,healsohadafewunpleasantencounterswithPanditaRamabai,anIndian

widowwhobecamequitepopularintheWestbecauseofherwillingnesstospeakout

publiclyagainsttheatrocitiescommittedagainstwidowsinIndia.In“Spiritual

MasculinityandSwamiVivekananda”(2014),IndiraChowdhuryarguesthatthatthese

allegations,aboutthestateofwomeninIndia,rattledVivekanandaconsiderably:

ThemissionaryconstructionofaheathenmotherwholackedinmaternalemotionsrequiredthepedagogyoftheBible,anditiswithreferencetothesethatwecancomprehendVivekananda’sstatementsaboutglorifiedmotherhood.Thesamemechanismoperatesonhisstatementsaboutwidows–herepeatedlyrefusedtoacknowledgethehardshipsimposedonthembyHindusociety.ThroughouthisstayatAmerica,Vivekanandareiteratedthispointsattimestakingittoanabsurdlimit:‘alargepartofthepropertyinthecountryisheldbywidows.Infact,soenviableisthepositionofwidowsthatawomanormaneithermightalmostpraytobemadeawidow’(2014,p.398,emphasisadded).

Thus,Chowdhuryconcludes:

Atoneendofthisspectrumofself-representationstoodthelearnedRamabai,herselfawidow,elucidatingthereasonsforawoman’slowstatusinHindusociety,whileattheotherstoodVivekanandawithhisrefusaltorecognizeherexperience.VivekanandaconstruedRamabai’sactivitiesasultimatelystrengtheningthehandsofthemissionaries,andhis‘silences’aswellashiscontraryassertionsformanessentialpartofhiseffortsatvalidatingaHinduidentity(2014,pp.398-399).

ForVivekananda,theonlyidealizedimageofanIndianwomanthathewaswillingto

promotewasofachastemother.Afterall,asasanyasihimself:

Thefemininecounterpartoftheasceticmasculinecouldonlybeincarnatedbythisgrandnarrativeinspiritualterms–themotherwhomnolustcouldtouch(Chowdhury,2014,p.399).

265

Infact,eventhoughhehadbenefittedfromthehospitalityofnumerable

Americanwomen,whohespokeofinthehighestterms,94hecouldneverenvisiona

similarsituationinIndiaand,assuch,differedsubstantiallyfromhispredecessors.Itis

truethathealsoupheldVedicwomen,likeGargiandMaitreyi,usingtheirexampleto

provetohisWesternlistenersthatwomenwerenotdenigratedinIndia.Nevertheless,

heenvisionedadifferentkindofwomanforthemodernageandhefreelydeprecated

femininetraitswhichhewantedtoeradicatefromtheIndianpsyche.Thus,hedeclares,

inalettertohisbrotherdiscipleAlasinga,“Ishallhavetocomeandmanufacturemen

outofyou.IknowthatIndiaisonlyinhabitedbywomenandeunuchs”(Vivekananda,

2009,vol.5,p.86).Needlesstosay,thissinglefacetedversionoftheIndianwomanis

deeplyproblematic.Womenwerenotviewedasdynamicbeingsbutratherastoolsto

accentuateandaidthevisionthattheirmalecounterpartshadforIndiansocietyandthe

Hindunation.Womenwerenotseenasfullpartnersintheprojectofnationbuildingbut

ratherascogsinamaleorienteduniverse.Thisisextremelydisappointing,especiallyin

regardtoVivekananda,whonotonlyhadrichandmeaningfulrelationshipswitha

numberofhisfemaleWesternadmirersandfollowers,butalsobecausehe

acknowledgedthepowerofthedivinemother.Consequently,whenoneconsidershis

multifacetedrelationshipwiththefeminineprinciple,itisdishearteningtolearnthathe

heldsuchanarchaicviewoftheIndianwoman’spotentialandroleinsociety.Thus,he

tellstheWesternwomenheencountersonhistravels:

Ishouldverymuchlikeourwomentohaveyourintellectuality,butnotifitmustbeatthecostofpurity…Intellectualityisnotthehighestgood.Moralityandspiritualityarethethingsforwhichwestrive.Ourwomenarenotsolearned,buttheyaremorepure(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.412).

94Forexample,inalettertohisdisciplesinMadras,Vivekanandawrites“AboutthewomenofAmerica,Icannotexpressmygratitudefortheirkindness.Lordblessthem.Inthiscountry,womenarethelifeofeverymovement,andrepresentallthecultureofthenation,formenaretoobusytoeducatethemselves”(Vivekananda,2009,vol.5,p.28).

266

Accordingly,itiswithgraveconcernthatonerealizesthatVivekananda’smodel

ofachaste,renunciatemotheriswhatcomestomindwhenoneexaminessomeofthe

womenwhoarecurrentlyactiveintheHindutvamovement.95In“FeminismInverted”

AmritaBasuhighlightstheimageofthreewomenwhohavebecomekeyplayersinthe

SanghParivar.Whereassheacknowledgesthattherearemanywaysinwhichthese

threewomendifferfromeachother,shedoesrecognizethatthereisonecrucialtrait

thatiscommontoallthree:

Thereis,amidsttheirmanydifferences,onestrikingsimilaritybetweenScindia,BharatiandRithambara,thatiscriticaltotheprojectofHindunationalism.Allthreewomenarecelibate:VijayrajeScindiaisawidowandUmaBharatiandSadhviRithambaraaresanyasins(Sadhvimeanscelibate).TheirchastityheightenstheiriconicstatusforitisdeeplyassociatedinHinduismwithnotionsofspirituality,purityandotherworldliness;thesequalitiesalsomakethesewomenreliablespokespersonsforthefutureHindurashtra(Basu,1995,p.161).

Thereareseveralfactorswhichmakethepopularityofthesewomenparticularly

troubling.SadhviRithambhara,forexample,isoneofthepeopleattributedwiththe

successoftheRamjanmabhumimovement.Tapecassetteswithherspeeches,rilingup

heraudiencestoriseupandtakedowntheBabrimasjid,arecreditedwiththeviolence

thateruptedafterthisevent.Thisledtomanyoftheunforgivableactsofrapeand

murderthatwerecommittedbyHindusuponMuslims.TanikaSarkarreports:

HerringingexhortationstoHindustoariseandkillMuslimshavepaidrichdividendsintheformofanti-Muslimpogromseveninplacesearlierfreeofcommunalconflict.AtthesmallwesternUPtownofKhurja,forinstance,theoldlaneswerestrewnwithnearly200MuslimcorpsesaftertwoboutsofviolenceinDecemberandJanuary1990-1.Interviewingsomeoftheinhabitantsweweretoldthatthougholdhabitsdiehard,andthoughpeacefulcoexistencehadbeenonesucholdhabit,repeatedbroadcastsofRithambhara’scassetteoversuccessivedaysatlocaltempleshadfinallydonethetrick.PriestsfromBastiin

95TheHindutvamovementdoesnotonlyusetheroleofthemothertofurtherits’politicalagenda.TheyalsoutilizeBankimchandra’sandSaraswati’sconceptofwomanhoodquiteliberally.However,forthepurposesofthecurrentdiscussionwewillfocusontheconceptofthechastemother,whichVivekanandapromoted,andthewayitoperateswithintheSanghParivar.

267

UPinformedusthattheyhadsuspendedtheirnormalprogrammesofrecitationfromsacredtextsattemplesinordertocontinuouslyplaythecassette.ThePeshImamoftheBabrimosqueatAyodhyapleadedwithP.K.Datta,amemberofourinvestigatingteam,tohelpbanthecassetteviaanagitationinDelhi.Hesaidthatthiscassettehadbyitself‘erectedawallofhatredbetweenhearts’(Sarkar,2010,pp.269-270).

UndernocircumstancesamIsuggestingthatVivekanandawouldhavecondonedsuch

actions.Heneveradvocatedforviolenceinanysituation.However,onecanalsoargue

thathiscallforavirile,manlynationcouldbeinterpretedasacallforaggression.

Similarly,hisdevotiontoKali,whoisthemostformidableofallHinduGoddessescould

alsobeviewedasanodtowardspersonalitieslikeRithambhara,who,afteronewatches

justafewminutesofherspeeches(theyarereadilyavailableonline),leavesonewith

theimpressionofanextremelyangryandimpassionedfemaleascetic,averitableKali.

Yet,AmritaBasuhighlightshowthesewomen,despitebeingpowerfulvoicesin

thepublicarenaofHindutvapolitics,insistthatnevertheless,awoman’splace,isfirst

andforemostwithherfamily.Somuchso,VijayrajeScandia,whoisawidowherself,

wasunwillingtospeakingoutagainstsati,apracticethathasbeenoutlawedforovera

century:

Reiteratingapositionthatshehadmadepublicly,VijayrajeScandiadefendedsatiinaninterviewwithme.Referringtoreligiousscriptures,shedrewahighlyquestionabledistinctionbetweenvoluntarysati,towhichsheattributedaglorioustradition,andthecoercedsatiofrecenttimes,whichsheconsideredimmoral.ShewasevasivewhenaskedhowshewoulddescribeRoopKanwar’ssati,sayingthatitmusthavebeenwrongifinfactithadbeencoercedbutshecouldnotbesure.Inotherrespectssheremainedcommittedtoasymmetricalgenderroles.ShearguedthatIndianreligionandculturesupportedthenotionthatwomen’sprimarydutieswereaswivesandmothers(Basu,1995,pp.167-168).96

96RoopKanwarwasan18-year-oldwomanwhoallegedlycommittedsatiin1987.ForadeeperanalysisofthiscontroversialissueseeBanerjee(2011).

268

ThedoublestandardsemployedbyScindiaarenotlosttosome,leadingthecommunal

harmonyactivistRamPuniyanitoquip,“somehowsheherselfneverexercisedthisright

herself”(Puniyani,2012).

Whatmakestheeffortsofwomensuchastheseparticularlydisturbingisthat

theyrepresentagrowingnumberoffemaleswhoareassociatingthemselveswiththe

SanghParivarandtheirideology.Thewomen’swingoftheRSSwasestablishedin1936,

11yearsaftertheRSSwasformed,andiscalledtheRashtrasevikaSamiti.Sarkarargues

thatthisapparentinclusionoffemales,inwhathadbeenanall-maleorganization,

shouldnotbetakentosignifyequalitybetweengenders.Accordingly,shedraws

attentiontothefactthattheword‘volunteer’isabsentfromthistitle:

WemustnotethatwhilethenameRashtriyaSwayamsevakSanghmeans‘NationalistVolunteers’,thetermRashtrasevikadenoteswomenwhoservethenation.Thedifferenceinthenamesissignificantinseveralways.Itnotonlyrelegateswomen’sworkwithintheSamitiorganizationtoadomesticrole,butalsoconsignstheirdomesticlabourfirmlytothesphereofhumbleservice.Thesenseofautonomyandself-choicethatareassociatedwiththeword‘volunteer’arenotablymissing(Sarkar,1995,pp.184-185).

Bethatasitmay,thisgroupisrapidlygainingaccessandinfluenceovermiddleclass

womeninIndiatoday.Thesewomenaregivenphysicaltrainingandtaughthowto

defendthemselvessince,moreoftenthannot,theyarerequiredtoworkoutsidethe

home.However,itisevidentthatthemostcrucialaspectfortheformationofthis

woman’sgroupwassothattheRSScoulddisseminatetheirideologyviathevehicleof

theHindumother,whoisresponsiblefortheearlyeducationofherHindusons:

ThemotherispivotaltotheRSSschemeofmobilizingitsownfamily.Golwalkaralsoadvisedher[thesevikas]tomake‘usefulcontactsamongthewomenfolkwithintheneighborhoodandcarryoutprogrammeswhichwouldinculcateourcherishedideasamongthemandtheirchildren.’Mothers,then,arepoliticalcreaturesandagentsandwewillnotgraspthedeeplypoliticalimportofthisagendaunlessweareclearaboutthedirectlypoliticalandnotmerelyideologicalsignificanceofeverydayrelations,personaldispositionandhabits,ofdomesticritualandpracticewithintheRSSschemeforhegemony,andthefullsignificanceofthemuchusedandkeyterm‘samskaras’intheSanghvocabulary.Themother

269

istoinstilhabitsofdeference,ofobedience,ofrespectfortheRSSversionofpatriotism.Sheshouldscramblethechild’searliestnotionofhistory,mythologyandpatriotismthroughmorallessonsabout‘faithinDharmaandprideinourhistory’,andinstructionsabout‘tirthasandtemples’.Theimportanceoflearningtheminearliestinfancywhencriticalfacultiesarenotaroused,oflearningthemthroughstorieswhoseformatdemandsasuspensionofquestioningandpassivelisteningisenormous.AstohowimportantthelessonsinDharmaandhistory,pilgrimagesandtempleslumpedtogetherare,shouldbeevidentinthesuccessoftheRamjanmabhoomicampaignwhichpittedaMuslimkingagainstthesacredfigureofRam,andinsistedthatthedestructionoftheBabriMosquewasnotonlyareligiousbutalsoapatrioticduty.Onecannotlearntheselessonstooyoung(Sarkar,1995,p.189).

Whereastherearemultipleaspectsofthesemethodsandideologythataredeeply

disturbing,forthepurposesofourcurrentdiscussionitbecomesclearthat

organizationssuchasthesedonotencouragefemaleempowermentinthenormative

sense.Indeed,ElenTurnerin“EmpoweringWomen?FeministResponsestoHindutva”

(2012),emphasizestheneedtorecognizethatthesewomenwouldnotconsider

themselvesfeministseventhoughmanyoftheiractivitiesandprogramsusefeminist

“symbols,slogansandideas”:

Despitethesewomens’ownunconventionalimagesandlifestyles,theybynomeansencouragedwomen’semancipationinwaysthatfeministsunderstand.CallsforwomentoleavetraditionalrolesorstepoutsideofpatriarchalsocietyweresolelyforthesakeofHindutva.Thisrepresentsafundamentalpoliticalproblemforfeministsatthelevelofstrategy–outspoken,politicallyengagedandunconventionalwomenwereutilisingmethodsanddiscourseakintothoseusedbyfeministstopromoteanti-feministideology.Thisallowedtherightwingtooccupydiscursivespacesthatfeministsbelievedtheyhadcontrolof,forcingre-evaluationsofthesupposedlypacifistnatureofwomenandtheroleoffeminisminIndiansociety(Turner,2012,p.4).

Oneofthebiggestconcernswiththisdevelopment,wherebywomenarepittedagainst

women,isthatthisallowsthemalepopulationtomaintainthepatriarchalstatusquoin

India.In“Women,MuscularNationalismandHinduisminIndia:RoopKanwarandthe

FireProtests”(2011),SikataBanerjeemakesaninterestingobservationthathighlights

howsuchmethodsonlyresultinharmingwomenthemselves.

270

Inmuscularnationalismthisfocusonthepurityandchastityoffemalebodiesstemsfromtheirroleasborderguards.ByborderguardsImeanthenotionthattheboundariesseparating‘wethepeople’from‘them’arerepresentedbychastewomen’sbodies.Putanotherway,thislineofthinkingarguesthatourwomenarechasteandpure,yoursarenot.Thisisthedifferencethatseparatesournationfromyours.Women’sroleasborderguardsrequiresthattheirpuritybevigilantlyguarded.Thus,othermembersofthenationalcommunity(usuallymen,butsometimesotherwomen)policetheirbodiesandbehaviour(Banerjee,2011,p.273).97

Thus,shecontends:

Hindumuscularnationalismhighlightstheroleofwomenasborderguardsofthenation.Indeed,themasculineisreliantonthevirtuouswoman.Inshort,Hindumalemartialspiritlosessomeofitsvalueiffemalechastityfailstobeadominantsymbolofthenationalcommunity(Banerjee,2011,p.274).

TheideathatHinduwomenhavetobechastehasalreadyhadnumerablenegative

consequencesforwomeninIndia.Forinstance,itisnotuncommonforrapevictimsto

beblamedfortheattackbecauseofhowthewomenaredressedorbecausetheyare

perceivedtobepromiscuous.98Similarly,womenwhovisitbars,orhavepre-marital

relationshipsandengageinanyactivitiesthataredeemedtobe‘Western’,are

consideredtobe‘loose’and‘immoral’andatsomelevel,deservingofanyinappropriate

orviolentactscommittedagainstthem.99AnIndianmagazine,Tehelka,highlightsthis

narrativethatisbeingpublicizedbytheHindutvamovementinanarticlethatisaptly

titled“Rape.Andhowmenseeit”(2013):

Howendemicistheprejudicethatstalksoursociety?Whatproducesandperpetuatesit?Whatcreatestheideaofwomenas‘fairgame’forsexualviolence?What,ineffect,doIndianmenthinkaboutwomen?ItwouldhavebeencomfortingifvilefoolishnessinIndiahadbeenthedomainofafew.ButAsaramBapuisnotalonewhenhesaysonehandcannotclapbyitself.

97Interestingly,thesetheorieshavebeenputtothetestbyjournalistswhohaveconductedinvestigationstouncoverthewaythe“Hindutvabrigade”havetriedtocombatthe‘sullying’ofchasteHindugirlsbyMuslimmen(Bakhshi,2015).98Forexample,see,“TheAnatomyofaRape”http://www.tehelka.com/2013/01/the-anatomy-of-a-rape/99Forexamplesee,“PoliticsofKiss”http://www.tehelka.com/2014/11/kerala-kiss-of-love-protests-indian-culture-moral-policing/and“Valentine’sWarriors”http://www.tehelka.com/2009/02/valentines-warriors/

271

Orthattakingdiksha,recitingamantraandpleadingwithherrapistsasbrothersmighthavesavedtheyounggirlthatfatefulnight.TheclergyofJamaat-e-Islaami-Hindarenotalonewhentheyadvocateco-educationalinstitutestobeshutdown,pre-maritalsextobeoutlawedandgirlstodressinsoberanddignifiedclothesaswaystopreventrape.MohanBhagwatisnotalonewhenheassertsmorerapeshappenin‘India’than‘Bharat’–thefirstasynecdocheforpromiscuousmodernity,thelatterforamorepiousandtraditionalorderwherewomenlivewithinboundariesprescribedbymen(Chaudhury,2013).

Thescarytruthisthatthese‘absurd’claimsarenotdissimilarfromthe‘absurd’ones

thatIndiraChowdhuryhighlightsregardingthewayVivekanandadefendedtheIndian

treatmentofwidowswhenfacedwiththeallegationsofPanditaRamabai.Furthermore,

hisinsistenceforchastity,whentakentoitslogicalextreme,couldbeusedasanexcuse

forattackinggirlsatalocalpubinKeralabecausetheywereallegedlybehaving

promiscuously.AsbothTanikaSarkarandUmaChakravartihaveremindedus,this

visionofthechasteHinduwoman/motherhasbecomeadoxathatisalmostimpossible

tochallengeinIndiatoday.Unfortunately,itisaworldviewthatbothgendersinvolved

withtheHindutvamovementhaveembraced.Thus,eventhoughitistruethat

Vivekanandacannotbeblamedforhowhisvisionofachastemother,whowoulduplift

India,hasbeenappropriated,itishardtoforgethiswords:

EvenI,whohavenevermarried,belongingtoanOrderthatnevermarries,wouldbedisgustedifmywife,supposingIhadmarried,daredtodispleasemymother.Iwouldbedisgusted.Why?DoInotworshipmymother?Whyshouldnotherdaughter-in-law?WhomIworship,whynotshe?Whoisshe,then,thatwouldtrytorideovermyheadandgovernmymother?Shehastowaittillherwomanhoodisfulfilled;andtheonethingthatfulfilswomanhood,thatiswomanlinessinwoman,ismotherhood.Waittillshebecomesamother;thenshewillhavethesameright.That,accordingtotheHindumind,isthegreatmissionofwoman–tobecomeamother(Vivekananda,2009,vol.8,p.59).

Conclusion

Oneofthecentralpurposesofthisthesishasbeentoarticulatetheimpactthat

VivekanandahashadonthewayHindutraditionsareinterpretedtodate.Particularly

272

sincehisinfluenceisoftentimesstillshroudedeitherinhagiographicalaccounts(and

theirrebuttals)orbyOrientalistinfluencedscholarshipthatrefusestorecognizethe

roleheplayedinIndianpolitics.Consequently,Ibeganbydescribingthisexchangeof

ideas,betweentheEastandtheWest,asaformof‘continentalcollision’.Thisallowed

ustoestablishthattherewasamutualsharingoftheoriesandphilosophy;thatitwas

notone-sided.‘Continentalcollision’notonlyhighlightsthefactthatthiswasaclashof

civilizationsbutalsothattheeffectsofthisencountercontinuetoreverberatetoday.

ThispointisdrivenhomebyNandywhowithhisexplicationof‘colonizedminds’opens

upaconversationwherebywecanbegintoappreciatehow,andwhy,menlike

Vivekananda,whowereprominentoveracenturyago,canstillimpactthedailylivesof

Indians.Vivekananda’spopularity,combinedwiththetremendouseffectsofthis

‘continentalcollision’,puthiminauniquepositiontopushbackagainstthesuture

zonesthatwereformingbetweentheWestandtheEast.BychallengingWesternerson

theconceptsandterminologytheyusedtodescribeIndianphilosophy,andby

demonstratingthatVedantacouldstandshouldertoshoulderwithWestern

philosophicaltruths,Vivekanandacreatedanatmosphereofhopeandprideamongst

hisIndianlisteners.Thus,Vivekananda,andotherleaderslikehim,foughtagainstthe

‘colonizationofIndianminds’thatwasrampantincolonialIndia.

However,inordertoanalyseVivekananda’simpactonmodernIndia,wehadto

firstexaminethedefinitionsoftwokeyconcepts,conceptsthatVivekanandaengaged

withcloselyandwhichmodernacademicscontinuetograpplewith.Assuch,inthe

secondchapter,weexploredhowscholarshavestruggledtodefine‘religion’,

particularlywhenitisusedtodescribetraditionsotherthanChristianity.Thisallowed

ustoconsiderthelensthatiscommonlyusedtoanalysecultures,alensthatacademics

haverepeatedlydeterminediscompromisedbecauseofitsemphasisonWestern

273

models.Withthehelpofavarietyofscholarswewereabletoidentifythenumerous

risksassociatedwiththeindiscriminateuseofthislabel.Infact,bytracingthe

complexitiesassociatedwiththehistoryoftheconcept‘religion’Iwasabletodefend

theuseoftheterm‘tradition’sinceitsversatilityisbettersuitedtodescribingIndia’s

diversepast.Furthermore,thisanalysisallowedustodetermine,insubsequent

chapters,howVivekanandastruggledwiththisconceptandtheparametersitusedto

definetraditionsthatwere‘worthy’ofbeingclassifiedas‘worldreligions’.Thus,we

learnedthatdespiterepeatedlyarguingfortheuniquequalitiesofIndiantraditionshe

wasstillsusceptibletotheinfluenceofthisterminology.

Similarly,inChapter3,wesawthattheterm‘Hinduism’continuestobea

minefieldforscholarshipassociatedwiththestudyofIndiantraditions.Byhighlighting

thedilemmasthatarecommonlylinkedtotheusageofthislabelwediscussedthe

precariousnatureof‘naming’ideasthatdonotnaturallylendthemselvestoessentialist

categories.Wesawhowscholarsweredividedintocamps,whoweresupposedly

arguingopposingviewpoints,butwho,inreality,weresimplytwosidesofthesame

coin.Thisonlyhelpedtoreinforcethepredicamentwithbundlingthevastlydifferent

traditionsthatarenativetoIndia,undertheumbrellaof‘Hinduism’;apointthatis

stressedbyBalagangadharaandThapar.Unfortunatelyhowever,despitethefactthatI

determinedthatIwouldopt,instead,tousetheterm‘Hindutraditions’,Ihadtodoso

withtheexplicitunderstandingthatitwasnon-conclusive.Nevertheless,thisanalysis

gaveusaframeworkfromwhichtounderstandtheimportanceofthislabelandhow

Vivekananda’sdescriptionandusageofthistermcontinuestoberelevantinmodern

scholarship.Indeed,wesawhowevenVivekananda,despitebeingkeenlyawareofthe

polytheticqualityofIndiantraditions,wasinstrumentalinconfiningHinduphilosophy

andpracticesunderasinglebanner.

274

AswesawinChapter4,whatmadeVivekananda’spackagingofHindutraditions

sosuccessfulwashiseclecticupbringingandeventualassociationwithRamakrishna,

whichledtohisacceptanceofmonks’orders.WediscussedhowhisstrongIndianroots,

combinedwithhisaptitudetoanalyseWesternconceptstosuitIndianaudiences,while

dressedinthegarbofasanyasi,convertedhimintotheidealsymbolicfigureofa

burgeoningnation.Inthisway,Vivekananda’sIndianvoice,coupledwithhiscapacity

forappealingtoavastvarietyofaudiences,propelledhimintobecominganinfluential

personality.WewereabletodeterminethateventhoughscholarslikeHacker,

FrykenbergandvonStietencron,tomentionjustafew,haverepeatedlyarguedthata

unitedHinduidentityowesitscreationtoOrientalistscholars,thetruthwasthatIndian

voiceslikeVivekananda’swereequallyresponsibleforthisapparentunification.

Consequently,weexploredhowVivekananda’searlychildhoodeducation,interaction

withtheBrahmoSamaj,andrelationshipwithRamakrishnacontributedtothe

developmentofhismessage.

ByinvestigatingVivekananda’sspeechesattheParliamentinChapter5,we

ascertainedhowhedevelopedhisargumentswhichledhimawayfromRamakrishna’s

experimentationwithotherpathstotherepackagingofHindutraditions.This

repackagingallowedhimtopresentHinduphilosophyastheperfectvehiclefora

‘universalreligion’.Heargued,unlikeHegel,thatIndiawasnotonlythebirthplaceof

‘religion’butthatVedantawasthemotherofall‘religions’.Drawingoutthe

complexitiesassociatedwithsuchclaimsallowedustodiscoverhowVivekananda

begantoprivilegeAdvaitaoverallotherformsoftradition,bothEasternandWestern.

ThroughouttheanalysisofVivekananda’smethodologyincultivatingaunitedfrontfor

Hindutraditions,wemeasuredhowheappropriatedandaccommodatedideasthathe

culledfrombothWesternphilosophyandEasterntraditions.Indeed,itwaswhilehe

275

wasstillattheParliamentthatwewitnessVivekananda’sprivilegingofVedantaatthe

expenseofothernativeIndiantraditionswhichincluded,butwerenotlimitedto,

BuddhistandJaintraditionsandthepathofbhakti.

InChapter6weobservedthatVivekanandacontinuedonthistrajectorywhenhe

returnedtoIndiawherebyherefusedtosidewiththeidealsofthetraditionalistsor

revivalistsbecauseneitherresonatedwithhisvisionforIndia.Here,weestablishedhow

Vivekanandapulledawayfromdevotionaltraditionsbycallinghiscountrymento

cultivate“musclesofironandnervesofsteel”.Indeed,eventhoughheclaimedhewas

notinterestedinenteringthepoliticalarenanevertheless,hearguedthatIndia

respondedbesttoreligiousarguments.Addthistohiscallforsanyasistoput

themselvesattheserviceofthemassesanditbecomesclearthatVivekananda’s

messagehadahighvisibilityprofilewhichcouldprovetobeausefulpoliticalstrategy.

Accordingly,wesawthatthroughhisemphasisonaunitedfront,whichwasbasedon

theuniversalappealofVedanta,hewasabletohelpcreateahierarchythereby

underminingotherIndiantraditionsbyinsistingthattheybelongedonalowerrung,the

apexofwhichwasAdvaita.

Inthisfinalchapter,IbroughtVivekanandaintothe21stcenturybyarticulating

therolehecontinuestoplayinIndianpublicpolicy.Thus,eventhoughpolitical

scientistslikeChatterjeeandJaffrelothavechosentoside-linehisimpactonIndian

politics,recenteventshavedemonstratedotherwise.Thisiswhyhehasbeen

appropriatedbytheIndiannationalistmovementwhoaretryingtoestablishaHindu

state.Indeed,whattheseargumentsshouldhavehighlightedisthatbytakingcertain

positionsVivekanandalenthimselftoamorefundamentalformofHinduthought.His

stanceonwomen,hisargumentforthesuperiorityofIndianphilosophy,hiscallfora

moremuscularnation,andhisdismissalofbhaktiasalesserpathhaveallallowedhim

276

tobeappropriatedbytheIndiannationalistsfortheircause.Vivekanandahasbeen

adoptedasarolemodelbyIndiannationalists.Assuch,ithasbecomenecessaryfor

Hindustocloselyanalysehismessageinordertoreallyunderstandhowdeeplyhis

wordshaveinfluencedtheIndianpsyche.Asadmadeaverystrongargumentwhereby

hewarnedreadersnottoignoretherolethattraditionsplayinpublicpolicy.Ironically,

VivekanandawouldhaveagreedwithAsadbecausehealsoarguedthat‘religion’wasa

crucialelementwhencommunicatingwiththeIndianmasses.Heknewthatitwasa

motivatingfactoranduseditwhenspeakingtohisaudiencesinIndia.TheIndian

nationalistsareusingVivekananda’splaybook.TheBabrimasjid,thetextbook

controversies,therestrictionsonwomen’s’freedomsandtherecentspateofhorrific

lynchingsallhavea‘religious’undertone.IthasbecomeimperativeforIndianstotake

noticeofwhatisbeingsaidintheir‘name’.

Thisurgentneedishighlightedinanarticletitled“NotinmyName:Irefuseto

cedeHinduismtothosewhowanttomakeIndiaaHindurashtra”(Viswanath,2017).

Here,SunitaViswanathmakestheargumentthatHindus,whoarewitnessingthe

atrocitiescommittedinthenameoftheirtraditionshavetostandupandtakeaction.

Theymustlayclaimtothetraditionsthatright-wingpoliticianshavedominatedover

thelastfewdecades.ThishasallowedgroupsliketheRSStodictatewhatHindu

traditionssignifyandinturnhavechangedthereligiouslandscapeofIndia.Coulditbe

thattherelegationof‘religion’totheprivatesphereincountrieswherethisisnota

naturalstateofaffairshasbroughtaboutthisfundamentallandslide?Isitbecausethe

Hindupublic,ingeneral,ignoredtheuseof‘religion’bypoliticiansbecausetheywere

comfortedbytheWesternconceptofseparationof‘churchandstate’?Isthiswhythey

didnottaketheincursionsofthereligiousrightintopoliticsseriously?HasIndiabeen

lulledintoastateofcomplacency?Whyhavetheyforgottenthatreligioustraditions

277

havealwaysformedoneofthepillarsofIndiansociety?Vivekananda,Gandhi,

Bankimchandraetal,acknowledgedtheplaceofHindutraditionsinIndianlife.Only

afterIndependence,withsecularismbecomingsuchacrucialsloganofthenewly

independentstate,wasitrelegatedtotheprivatesphere.This,inturn,hasledtothe

presentwhereHindusarefindingthemselvesinapositionwheretheymustdefend

theirvisionofHindutraditionsorelsebeatthereceivingendofscathingeditorials

whichlegitimatelyaccusethemofbeingcomplicitwiththeviolencebeingcommitted

againstminoritiesbecauseoftheirsilence(Mehta,2017).

Andfinally,IhavearguedthatVivekanandahadmanyfaces.Thathewasintent

onuniting‘Hinduism’.ThathebelievedthatAdvaitawastheperfectvehiclefora

universal‘religion’.Thathewasguiltyofunderminingothertraditionsinordertoreify

hisown.Thathehadcontroversialviewsaboutwomen.Butheneveradvocatedfor

violence.Vivekanandawouldhavenevercondonedthelynchingsthatarebeingcarried

outinIndiatoday(Bhattacharjee,2017andHalarnkar,2017).Itiseasytoimaginehim

clearlystatinginhisinimitable,oratoryvoice,“Notinmyname!”Thatisthe

Vivekanandaweneedtoday.AVivekanandawho,asHatcherremindedus,wasquickto

assesshissurroundingsandtheneedsofhisnation.Hewasamasterofadjustingthe

narrativetosuithissituation.Hehelpedcreateahierarchybecausehebelieveditwas

necessarytounitehispeople.Wouldhebejustaswillingtodismantlethishierarchyif

hethoughtitwastheonlywaytomaintaintheintegrityoftheIndianlandmass?Iwould

liketobelievehewould.Afterall,Vivekanandawasextremelyadeptatrenegotiating

conceptsandideasandassuchitisthisstrategyofhisthatIndiansmusttryand

emulatetoday.Indeed,itistheskillwithwhichpastleaderslikeVivekanandawereable

torethinkandaccommodatetraditionalHinduconceptsthatallowedfortheir

continuedsurvival.IsitreallyhardtobelievethatVivekanandawouldhaveshiftedhis

278

emphasisfromahierarchicaltraditionthatwasthreatingtheintegrityoftheIndian

landmass?Ithinknot.Onecouldarguethatoneofthemostimportantlessonsthat

Vivekanandaimpartedwashiswilltosurvive.Awillthatheimposedonthetraditions

heloved.Awillthathelpedhimcreateahierarchy.Itisthatsamekindofwillthat

Indiansmustnowusetore-examinethedangeroustrajectoryofHindunationalism.

Toconclude,thereareafewcrucialpointsthathaveconceivablybeenbrought

intofocuswiththissurveyonVivekanandaandhisinfluenceonthe(re)packagingof

modernHinduthought.Firstandforemost,bycultivatingthealternativelens,

‘continentalcollision’,withwhichtoanalysetheexchangeofideasthatoccurredduring

thecolonialera,wewereabletoclearlydeterminethatthisexchangewasnotone-

sided,butrathermulti-directional.Hopefully,thiswillhelptoaddressthecontinued

emphasisontheimpactoftheWestontheEastinmodernscholarship.Academicsneed

toconstantly‘debunk’thesetheoriesifwewanttoengageinatrulyequitable

discussionofphilosophywherebyeachtraditions’contributionsarerecognizedas

equallyvaluabletotheglobaldialogue.Furthermore,theframeworkprovidedby

‘continentalcollision’showsthecontinuedrelevanceofVivekananda’sargumentswhich

challengedtheverypremiseofcertainWesternconcepts;conceptsthatarestillbeing

disputedtoday.ThiscouldallowforfurtherresearchonhowotherIndianvoiceshave

alsoimpactedsuchdiscussionswhich,inturn,shouldaccentuatetheargumentsthat

otherscholarshavealsomadeastowhyWesternterminologymustnotbeused

indiscriminatelytodescribealternatetraditions.

Secondly,byturningourgazeontothehierarchythatwascultivatedby

Vivekananda,Iwasabletohighlighthowthecontinueduseofthishierarchycanprove

tobedetrimentaltothesurvivalofthemultiplediverseHindutraditionsin

contemporaryIndia.Notenoughattentionispaidtothishierarchyandthedamageit

279

hasdone,andcontinuestodo.NowhereareNandy’sobservationsabout‘colonized

minds’morerampantthaninthismilieu.Unfortunatelyhowever,sinceIndiawas

declaredasecularstateafterIndependencetheramificationsofthishierarchyhave

been,atleastuntilrecently,developingunderthesurfaceofIndiansociety.

Consequently,muchwaslostinanefforttoprovehowworthyIndianphilosophywas,

whencomparedtoWesternideology.Theneedtopresentaunitedfrontwhenfacing

theWestresultedinthecreationofahierarchyamongstHindutraditionsthatstill

threatenstounderminethelayersofsedimentationthatarepartofIndia’srichheritage.

Theironyisthattheverycreationofthishierarchywasinresponsetotheclaimthat

India’straditionslackedasenseoforderandconformity.Assuch,onecouldjustas

easilyarguethatthehierarchywhichwascreatedbyIndianmen,suchasVivekananda

was,inreality,awayofsuccumbingtothecolonizationoftheirminds!Byprivileging

AdvaitaoverotherHindutraditions,thecomplexwebofideaswithwhichIndiais

oftentimesidentifiediscompromised.Hopefullythisstudywillalertbothacademics,as

wellaspractitioners,thattheyneedtobevigilantiftheywanttoprotecttheintegrityof

India’sdiverselandscape.

Andfinally,IdemonstratedthatwhereasVivekanandaalwaysinsistedthathe

wasnotinterestedinpolitics,onecouldalsosurmisethathisemphasisonthe‘religious’

natureoftheIndianpopulationhaslentitselftothecreationofaHindunation.

ParticularlywhenthisiscoupledwithhisemphasisonAdvaitaandtheestablishmentof

ahierarchyamongsttraditions.Whereasthismayhavebeenacceptableduringthe

colonialperiod,duetoitsusefulnesswhenfightingforIndependence,todayitpromises

tounderminetheveryfoundationuponwhichHinduideaswerebuilt.Thisstudyhas

madeitevidentthatVivekanandahadamultifacetedpersonalitywhichneedstobe

unpackedandnottakenatfacevalue.Notenoughscholarshiphasfocusedonthisaspect

280

ofVivekananda’scontributionandhiscontinuedrelevanceformodernIndianthought.

Itistimeforacademicstorecognizetheneedforadeeperexplorationoftheimpactof

IndianvoiceslikeVivekananda’s.Otherwisewemightfindourselvesinasituation

wherehisideology,whichisnotonlyharmfultotheinherentlypolytheticnatureof

Indiantraditions,butcanalsobechauvinisticandprejudiced,willbecomesecond

natureinIndia.ByexaminingtherolethatVivekanandaplayedinthecreationofthis

hierarchyweareonestepclosertodisassemblingitbeforeitcausesaneruptionfrom

whichIndiacannotrecover.Turningthespotlightontheunderlyingmessagesof

Vivekananda’sargumentsisagoodplacetostart.

281

Bibliography

Asad,T.,1993.GenealogiesofReligion:DisciplineandReasonsofPowerinChristianity

andIslam.Baltimore/London:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress.Asad,T.,2001.ReadingaModernClassic:W.C.Smith's"TheMeaningandEndofReligion".HistoryofReligions,February,40(3),pp.205-222.Bakhshi,S.,2015.National:'OperationJuliet'Disclosingthebogeythatis'LoveJihad'.

[Online]Availableat:http://www.tehelka.com/2015/10/operation-juliet-disclosing-the-bogey-that-is-love-jihad/[Accessed25August2017].Balagangadhara,S.,2005."TheHeatheninhisBlindness...":Asia,theWestandthe

DynamicofReligion.2nded.NewDelhi:ManoharPublishers.Banerjee,S.,2011.Women,MuscularNationalismandHinduisminIndia:RoopKanwarandtheFireProtests.TotalitarianMovementsandPoliticalReligions,22January,11(3-4),pp.271-287.Barrows,J.H.R.,1893.TheWorld'sParliamentofReligions.Chicago:TheParliamentPublishingCompany.Basu,A.,1995.FeminismInverted:TheGenderedImageryandRealWomenofHinduNationalism.In:T.Sarkar&U.Butalia,eds.WomenandRight-WingMovements:Indian

Experiences.London/NewJersey:ZedBooksLtd.,pp.158-180.Basu,S.,2002.ReligiousRevivalismasNationalistDiscourse:SwamiVivekanandaand

NewHinduisminNineteenth-CenturyBengal.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Beckerlegge,G.,2004.TheEarlySpreadofVedantaSocieties:AnExampleof"ImportedLocalism".Numen,51(3),pp.296-320.Beckerlegge,G.,2006(a).IconographicrepresentationsofrenunciationandactivismintheRamakrishnamathandmissionandtheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh.Journalof

ContemporaryReligion,17May,19(1),pp.47-66.Beckerlegge,G.,2006(b).SwamiVivekananda'sLegacyofService:AStudyofthe

RamakrishnaMathandMission.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Beckerlegge,G.,2009.SafronandSeva:TheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh'sAppropriationofSwamiVivekananda.In:A.Copley,ed.HinduisminPublicandPrivate:

Reform,Hindutva,GenderandSampraday.Paperbacked.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.31-65.Beckerlegge,G.,2010.'Anordinaryorganisationrunbyordinarypeople':astudyofleadershipinVivekanandaKendra.ContemporarySouthAsia,9March,18(1),pp.71-88.

282

Bellah,R.N.,1970.BeyondBelief:EssaysonReligioninaPost-TraditionalWorld.NewYork:HarperandRow.Benavides,G.,1998.Modernity.In:M.C.Taylor,ed.CriticalTermsforReligiousStudies.

Chicago/London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,pp.186-204.Bharati,A.,1970.TheHinduRenaissanceanditsApologeticPatterns.TheJournalof

AsianStudies,February,29(2),pp.267-287.Bhattacharjee,M.F.,2017.Communalism:TheLynchingofaNation.[Online]Availableat:https://thewire.in/151101/the-lynching-of-a-nation/[Accessed23August2017].Bhattacharya,D.,2013.Opinion:ModiandSwamiVivekananda:AtaleofTwoNarendras.

[Online]Availableat:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/an-iconic-problem-modi-vivekananda-sardar-patel/1/332452.html[Accessed25August2017].Bhattacharya,N.,2009.TeachingHistoryinSchools:tehPoliticsofTextbooksinIndia.HistoryWorkshopJournal,1March,67(1),pp.99-110.Bourdieu,P.,1972.OutlineofaTheoryofPractice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Boyarin,D.,2004.BorderLines:ThePartitionofJudaeo-Christianity.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Brekke,T.,2002.MakersofModernIndianReligionintheLateNineteenthCentury.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Burke,M.L.,2013.SwamiVivekanandaintheWest:NewDiscoveries:HisProphetic

Mission.4thEditioned.Kolkata:AdvaitaAshrama.Chakravarti,U.,1990.WhateverHappenedtotheVedicDasi?Orientalism,Nationalism,andaScriptforthePast.In:K.Sangari&S.Vaid,eds.RecastingWomen:EssaysinIndian

ColonialHistory.NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress.Chatterjee,P.,2008.NationalistThoughtandtheColonialWorld:ADerivativeDiscourse.

SixthPrintinged.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Chattopadhyaya,R.,1999.SwamiVivekanandainIndia:ACorrectiveBiography.Delhi:MotilalBanarsidassPublishers.Chattopadhyay,B.,2003.BankimchandraChattopadhyay'sDharmatattva.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

283

Chaudhury,S.,2013.CurrentAffairs:Rape.Andhowmenseeit.[Online]Availableat:http://www.tehelka.com/2013/01/cover-story-rape-and-how-men-see-it/[Accessed21August2017].Chowdhury,I.,2014.SpiritualMasculinityandSwamiVivekananda.In:A.Raghuramaraju,ed.DebatingVivekananda:AReader.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.383-416.Clooney,F.X.S.,2012.TheMeaningofaSaint.[Online]Availableat:https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/issues/summerautumn2012[Accessed9March2017].Dalmia,V.,1999.TheNationalizationofHinduTraditions:BharatenduHarischandraand

Nineteenth-centuryBanaras.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Datta,B.,1954.SwamiVivekananda:Patriot-Prophet.Calcutta:NababharatPublishers.D'Costa,G.,1996.TheImpossibilityofaPluralistViewofReligions.ReligiousStudies,

June,32(2),pp.223-232.Doniger,W.,2009.TheHindus:AnAlternativeHistory.NewYork:ThePenguinPress.Dubuisson,D.,2003.TheWesternConstructionofReligion:Myths,Knowledgeand

Ideology.Paperbacked.Baltimore:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress.Farquhar,J.,1915.ModernReligiousMovementsinIndia.NewYork:TheMcMillanCompany.Ferro-Luzzi,G.E.,2005.ThePolythetic-PrototypeApproachtoHinduism.In:G.Sontheimer&H.Kulke,eds.HinduismReconsidered.2nded.NewDelhi:ManoharPublishers,pp.294-304.Fitzerald,T.,2000.TheIdeologyofReligiousStudies.NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Foucault,M.,1980.Power/Knowledge:SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings1972-

1977.NewYork:PantheonBooks.Foucault,M.,1982.TheSubjectandPower.CriticalInquiry,Summer,8(4),pp.777-795.Frykenberg,R.E.,2005.Theemergenceofmodern"Hinduism"asaconceptandasaninstitution:areappraisalwithspecialreferencetoSouthIndia.In:G.D.Sontheimer&H.Kulke,eds.HinduismReconsidered.2nded.NewDelhi:ManoharPublishers,pp.82-107.Green,G.,2005.Hermeneutics.In:J.R.Hinnells,ed.TheRoutledgeCompaniontothe

StudyofReligion.London/NewYork:Routledge,pp.392-406.Guha,R.,1994(a).OnSomeAspectsofHistoriographyofColonialIndia.In:R.Guha,ed.SubalternStudiesI:WritingsonSouthAsianHistoryandSociety.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1-8.

284

Guha,R.,1994(b).Preface.In:R.Guha,ed.SubalternStudiesI:WritingsonSouthAsian

HistoryandSociety.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.vii-viii.Guha,R.,1997.Introduction.In:R.Guha,ed.ASubalternStudiesReader:1986-1995.

Minneapolis/London:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,pp.ix-xxii.Guichard,S.,2010.TheConstructionofHistoryandNationalisminIndia:Textbooks,

controversiesandpolitics.London/NewYork:Routledge.Hacker,P.,1995.AspectsofNeo-HinduismasContrastedwithSurvivingTraditionalHinduism.In:PhilologyandConfrontation:PaulHackeronTraditionalandModern

Vedanta.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,pp.229-255.Halarnkar,S.,2017.Indianama:Astoryoftwolynchings-andthesilenceofHinduIndia.

[Online]Availableat:https://scroll.in/article/841642/a-story-of-two-lynchings-and-the-silence-of-hindu-india[Accessed23August2017].Halbfass,W.,1988.IndiaandEurope:AnEssayinUnderstanding.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Halbfass,W.,2005.TheIdeaoftheVedaandtheIdentiryofHinduism.In:J.E.Llewellyn,ed.DefiningHinduism:AReader.NewYork:Routledge,pp.16-29.Hatcher,B.A.,1999.EclecticismandModernHinduDiscourse.NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hatcher,B.A.,2006.RememberingRammohan:AnEssayonthe(Re-)emergenceofModernHinduism.HistoryofReligions,August,46(1),pp.50-80.Hawley,J.S.,1991.NamingHinduism.WilsonQuarterly,15(3),pp.20-34.Hegel,G.F.W.,1901.PhilosophyofHistory.NewYork:P.F.CollierandSon.Hick,J.,1983.OnConflictingReligiousTruth-Claims.ReligiousStudies,December,19(4),pp.485-491.HTCorrespondent,2014.India:Obama'sgifttoModi-ararebook,withtheVivekananda

touch.[Online]Availableat:http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/obama-s-gift-to-modi-a-rare-book-with-the-vivekananda-touch/story-ARAFDVQvG9q5r1lqFPLdgO.html[Accessed17August2017].Jaffrelot,C.,1996.TheHinduNationalistMovementinIndia.Englished.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityofPress.Jaffrelot,C.,ed.,2007.HinduNationalism:AReader.Princeton/Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.

285

Jantzen,G.M.,2005.Foranengagedreading:WilliamJamesandthevarietiesofpostmodernreligiousexperience.In:J.Carrette,ed.WilliamJamesandtheVarietiesof

ReligiousExperience:ACentenaryCelebration.NewYork:Routledge,pp.97-105.Killingley,D.,1999.Vivekananda'sWesternmessagefromtheEast.In:W.Radice,ed.SwamiVivekanandaandtheModernisationofHinduism.PaperbackEditioned.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.138-157.King,R.,1999.OrientalismandReligion:PostcolonialTheory,Indiaand'TheMysticEast'.

London/NewYork:Routledge.King,R.,2005.Asianreligionsandmysticism:thelegacyofWilliamJamesinthestudyofreligions.In:J.Carrette,ed.WilliamJamesandtheVarietiesofReligiousExperience:A

CentenaryCelebration.NewYork:Routledge,pp.106-123.King,R.,2006.BrianK.Pennington,WasHinduismInvented?Britons,Indians,andtheColonialConstructionofReligion.TheJournalofReligion,October,86(4),pp.709-710.King,R.,2007.Theassociationof'religion'withviolence:Reflectionsonamoderntrope.In:J.R.Hinnells&R.King,eds.ReligionandViolenceinSouthAsia:TheoryandPractice.

London/NewYork:Routledge,pp.226-257.King,R.,2010.Colonialism,Hinduismandthediscourseofreligion.In:E.Bloch,M.Keppens&R.Hegde,eds.RethinkingReligioninIndia:Thecolonialconstructionof

Hinduism.London/NewYork:Routledge,pp.95-113.Kopf,D.,1979.TheBrahmoSamajandtheShapingoftheModernIndianMind.Princeton:PrincetownUniversityPress.Kripal,J.J.,1998.Kali'sChild:TheMysticalandtheEroticintheLifeandTeachingsof

Ramakrishna.2nded.Chicago/London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Kripal,J.J.,2004.ComparativeMystics:ScholarsasGnosticDiplomats.Common

Knowledge,10(3),pp.485-517.Krishnan,M.,2015.Asia:RewritingtextbooksinIndia,ahiddenagenda?.[Online]Availableat:http://www.dw.com/en/rewriting-textbooks-in-india-a-hidden-agenda/a-18799080#nomobile[Accessed20August2017].Kurien,P.A.,2007.APlaceattheMulticulturalTable:TheDevelopmentofanAmerican

Hinduism.NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress.Larson,G.J.,1995.India'sAgonyoverReligion.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Lipner,J.J.,1996.AncientBanyan:aninquiryintothemeaningof'Hinduness'.Religious

Studies,March,32(1),pp.109-126.Loewen,J.W.,1995.LiesMyTeacherToldMe:EverythingYourAmericanHistory

TextbookGotWrong.NewYork:Touchstone.

286

Lorenzen,D.N.,2005.WhoInventedHinduism.In:J.E.Llewellyn,ed.DefiningHinduism:

AReader.NewYork:Routledge,pp.52-80.Masuzawa,T.,1993.InSearchofDreamtime:TheQuestfortheOriginofReligion.

Chicago/London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Masuzawa,T.,2000.Origin.In:W.Braun&R.T.McCutcheon,eds.GuidetotheStudyof

Religions.London/NewYork:Cassell,pp.209-224.Masuzawa,T.,2005.TheInventionofWorldReligions:Or,HowEuropeanUniversalism

wasPreservedintheLanguageofPluralism.Chicago/London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.McCutcheon,R.T.,1997.ManufacturingReligion:TheDiscourseonSuiGenerisReligion

andthePoliticsofNostalgia.NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.McEvilley,T.,2002.TheShapeofAncientThought.NewYork:AllWorthPress.Mehta,P.B.,2017.Opinion:Maythesilentbedamned.[Online]Availableat:http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/junaid-pehlu-khan-mob-lynching-religion-minorities-hindu-muslim-politics-4723451/[Accessed23August2017].Mishra,P.,2014.Politics:NarendraModiandthenewfaceofIndia.[Online]Availableat:https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/16/what-next-india-pankaj-mishra[Accessed17August2017].Muller,M.,2002.TheScienceofReligion:LectureOne.In:J.R.Stone,ed.TheEssential

MaxMuller:OnLanguage,MythologyandReligion.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.Nandy,A.,1988.ThePoliticsofSecularismandtheRecoveryofReligiousTolerance.Alternatives:Global,Local,Political,1April,13(2),pp.177-194.Nandy,A.,1997.TheTwilightsofCertitude:Secularism,HinduNationalism,andOtherMasksofDeculturation.Alternatives:Global,Local,Political,Apr-Jun,22(2),pp.157-176.Nandy,A.,2006.TheIntimateEnemy:LossandRecoveryofSelfunderColonialism.

Twenty-secondimpression,ed.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Nandy,A.,2014.VivekanandaandSecularism:ANineteenthCenturySolutionandaTwentiethCenturyProblem.In:A.Raghuramaraju,ed.DebatingVivekananda:AReader.

NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.291-295.Narayanan,V.,2000.DiglossicHinduism:LiberationandLentils.JournaloftheAmerican

AcademyofReligion,December,68(4),pp.761-779.Nicholson,A.J.,2014.UnifyingHinduism:PhilosophyandIdentityinIndianintellectual

History.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Nikhilananda,S.,1989.Vivekananda:ABiography.Paperbacked.NewYork:Ramakrishna-VivekanandaCenter.

287

Nivedita,S.,1993.TheMasterasIsawHim.16thed.Calcutta:SwamiSatyavratanandaUdbodhanOffice.O'Hanlon,R.&Washbrook,D.,1992.AfterOrientalism:Culture,Criticism,andPoliticsintheThirdWorld.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory,January,34(1),pp.141-167.Oddie,G.A.,2006.ImaginedHinduism:BritishProtestantMissionaryConstructionsof

Hinduism,1793-1900.NewDelhi:SagePublications.OxfordDictionaries,n.d.OxfordDictionaries.[Online]Availableat:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/myth[Accessed15July2017].Puniyani,R.,2012.Opinion:Thenormofthepatriarch.[Online]Availableat:http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ws290212norm.asp[Accessed21August2017].Radhakrishnan,S.,1973.OurHeritage.NewDelhi:OrientPaperbacksRambachan,A.,1994.TheLimitsofScripture:Vivekananda'sReinterpretationofthe

Vedas.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.Raychaudhuri,T.,1988.EuropeReconsidered:PerceptionsoftheWestinNineteenth

CenturyBengal.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Raychaudhuri,T.,1999.SwamiVivekananda'sConstructionofHinduism.In:W.Radice,ed.SwamiVivekanandaandtheModernisationofHinduism.Paperbacked.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1-16.Richards,G.,1995.StudiesinReligion:AComparativeApproachtoTheologicaland

PhilosophicalThemes.London:St.Martin'sPress.Said,E.,1979.Orientalism.NewYork:VintageBooks.Sarkar,S.,2014.Kaliyuga,ChakriandBhakti:RamakrishnaandHisTimes.In:A.Raghuramaraju,ed.DebatingVivekananda:AReader.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.149-231.Sarkar,T.,1995.HeroicWomen,MotherGoddesses:FamilyandOrganisationinHindutvaPolitics.In:T.Sarkar&U.Butalia,eds.WomenandRightWingMovements:

IndianExperiences.London/NewJersey:ZedBooksLtd.,pp.181-215.Sarkar,T.,2010.HinduWife,HinduNation:Community,ReligionandCultural

Nationalism.PaperbackEditioned.Bloomington/Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.Savarkar,V.D.,1989.Hindutva:WhoisaHindu?.6thed.NewDelhi:BhartiSahityaSadan.Schmidt-Leukel,P.,2010.PluralistTheologies.TheExpositoryTimes,122(2),pp.53-72.

288

Scott,D.,2006.TheTroubleofThinking:AnInterviewwithTalalAsad.In:D.Scott&C.Hirschkind,eds.PowersoftheSecularModern:TalalAsadandHisInterlocuters.

Stanford(California):StanfordUniversityPress,pp.243-302.Seager,R.H.,2009.TheWorld'sParliamentofReligions:TheEast/WestEncounter

Chicago,1893.1stPaperbacked.Bloomington:IndianaUniverstiyPress.Sen,A.,2005.TheArgumentativeIndian:WritingsonIndianHistory,CultureandIdentity.

NewYork:Picador.Sen,A.P.,1993.HinduRevivalisminBengal:1872-1905:SomeEssaysinInterpretation.

Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Sen,A.P.,2000.SwamiVivekananda.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Sharma,A.,1998.TheConceptofUniversalReligioninModernHinduThought.NewYork:St.Martin'sPress.Sharma,J.,2003.Hindutva:ExploringtheIdeaofHinduNationalism.NewDelhi:PenguinBooks.Sharma,J.,2014.SwamiVivekananda.In:A.Raghuramaraju,ed.DebatingVivekananda:

AReader.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.330-380.Sil,N.P.,1997.SwamiVivekananda:AReassessment.Cranbury:AssociatedUniversityPresses.Sinha,M.,1995.Colonialmasculinity:The'ManlyEnglishman'andthe'Effiminate

Bengali'intheLateNineteenthCentury.Manchester/NewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress.Sinha,S.,2014.AsiaPacific:IndianLeaderNarendraModi,OnceUnwelcomeinU.S.,Gets

RockStarReception.[Online]Availableat:https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/world/asia/narendra-modi-madison-square-garden-united-states-indian-diaspora.html?mcubz=0[Accessed9July2016].Smith,J.,1978.MapisNotTerritory:StudiesintheHistoryofReligions.Leiden:E.J.Brill.Smith,J.,1982.ImaginingReligion:FromBabylontoJonestown.Chicago/London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Smith,J.,1998.Religion,Religions,Religious.In:M.C.Taylor,ed.CriticalTermsfor

ReligiousStudies.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,pp.269-284.Smith,W.C.,1963.TheMeaningandEndofReligion.1991ed.Minneapolis:FirstFortressPress.Spivak,G.C.,1988.CantheSubalternSpeak.In:C.Nelson&L.Grossberg,eds.Marcism

andtheInterpretationofCulture.London:Macmillan,pp.24-28.

289

Tehelka.com,2012.CurrentAffairs:TheAnatomyofaRape.[Online]Availableat:http://www.tehelka.com/2013/01/the-anatomy-of-a-rape/[Accessed25August2017].Thapar,R.,2005.SyndicatedHinduism.In:G.Sontheimer&H.Kulke,eds.Hinduism

Reconsidered.2ndEditioned.NewDelhi:ManoharPublishers,pp.52-81.Thapar,R.,2009.TheHistoryDebateandSchoolTextbooksinIndia:aPersonalMemoir.HistoryWorkshopJournal,Volume67,pp.87-98.Thapar,R.,2013.TheSecularModeforIndia.SocialScientist,November-December,41(11/12),pp.3-10.TheCaravan,2016.Questions:TheCaravan:Whathasbeenhappeninginrecenttimes

couldwelldevelopintoFascism":AnInterviewwithRomilaThapar.[Online]Availableat:http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/notes-nationalism-interview-romila-thapar[Accessed20August2017].TheTimesDigitalArchive,1931.MrChurchillonIndia.TheTimes,24February,p.16.Turner,E.,2012.EmpoweringWomen?FeministResponsestoHindutva.Intersections:

GenderandSexualityinAsiaandthePacific,March,Volume28,pp.1-13.vanderVeer,P.,1994(a).ReligiousNationalism:HindusandMuslimsinIndia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.vanderVeer,P.,1994(b).Syncretism,multiculturalismandthediscourseoftolerance.In:C.Stewart&R.Shaw,eds.Syncretism/Anti-syncretism:Thepoliticsofreligious

synthesis.London/NewYork:Routledge,pp.196-211.vanderVeer,P.,2006.ImperialEncounters:ReligionandModernityinIndiaandBritain.

Delhi:PermanentBlack.Viswanath,S.,2017.HuffPost:NotInMyName:IrefusetocedeHinduismtothosewho

wanttomakeIndiaaHIndurashtra.[Online]Availableat:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/not-in-my-name-i-refuse-to-cede-hinduism-to-those_us_5954694ae4b0c85b96c65f33[Accessed23August2017].Visweswaran,K.etal.,2009.TheHindutvaViewofHistory:RewritingTextbooksinIndiaandtheUnitedStates.GeorgetownJournalofInternationalAffairs,10(1),pp.101-112.Vivekananda,S.,2009.TheCompleteWorksofSwamiVivekananda:Volumes1-8.

MayavatiMemorial-ThirteenthEditionofSubsidizeded.Kolkata:AdvaitaAshrama.vonStietencron,H.,2005.Hinduism:Ontheproperuseofadeceptiveterm.In:G.Sontheimer&H.Kulke,eds.HinduismReconsidered.2nded.NewDelhi:ManoharPublishers,pp.32-53.

290

Yelle,R.A.,2013.TheLanguageofDisenchantment:ProtestantLiteralismandColonial

DiscourseinBritishIndia.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.