The Growth of Hindu Self-Identity

In this part, I will try to throw some light on the historical development of Hindu Self Identity and its relation with Sikh , Jaina & Bauddha.
Slowly, the Indian groups themselves started using the term, Hindu , differentiating themselves and their “traditional ways” from those of the invaders. The historical development of Hindu self-identity within the local South Asian population, in a religious or cultural sense, is unclear. A sense of Hindu identity and the term Hindu appears in Some texts dated between the 13th and 18th century in Sanskrit and Bengali. The 14th- and 18th-century Indian poets such as Vidyapati, Kabir, Bulleh Shah, and Eknath used the phrase Hindu dharma (Hinduism) and contrasted it with Turaka dharma (Islam). So here also the term is used as an ethno-cultural identity of India , and muslims are referred to as Turks, which is also an ethnicity.[Most great influential Islamic dynasties that ruled India were (partially) Turkic in origin, and followed Turkic customs, norms]
Inscriptional evidence from the 8th century onwards, in regions such as South India, suggests that medieval era India, at both elite and folk religious practices level, likely had a “shared religious culture”, and their collective identities were “multiple, layered and fuzzy”. Even among Hinduism denominations such as Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism, the Hindu identities, states Leslie Orr, lacked “firm definitions and clear boundaries”.

The text Pṛthvīrāj Rāso, by Chanda Baradai, about the 1192 CE defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori, is full of references to “Hindus” and “Turks”, and at one stage, says “both the religions have drawn their curved swords;”

Other prominent mentions of ‘Hindu’ include the epigraphical inscriptions from Andhra Pradesh kingdoms who battled military expansion of Muslim dynasties in the 14th century, where the word ‘Hindu’ partly implies a religious identity in contrast to ‘Turks’ or Islamic religious identity. The term Hindu was later used occasionally in some Saṃskṛta texts such as the later Rājataraṃgiṇī of Kashmir (Hinduka, c. 1450) and some 16th- to 18th-century Bengali Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava texts, including Caitanya Caritāmṛta and Caitanya Bhāgavata. These texts used it to contrast Hindus from Muslims who are called Yavanas (foreigners) or Mlecchas (barbarians), with the 16th-century Caitanya Caritāmṛta text and the 17th-century Bhakta Māla text using the phrase “Hindu dharma”. Unlike the classical literature where “Yavana” was used for Greeks, In the late Medieval Indic literature , the term ‘yavana’ was used to refer anything/anyone related to non-Indian origin/culture, which were muslims in most scenarios.

Another instance of Hindu self identification occurs in early medieval Deccan. Many native rulers of Deccan and south India , adopted the title of ‘Hindurāya Suratrāṇa‘. Suratrāṇa is considered to be transliteration of the Islamic word “Sultan” into Sanskrit. Some scholars have interpreted this to mean “the Sultan among Hindu kings” A related term Hindurāvu Suradhāni is found in inscriptions in andhra. Both Suratrana and Suradhani are transliterations of Sultan. Some scholars interpret the term Hinduraya Suratrana to mean “protectors of the gods of (or among) the Hindu kings”.

When Shivaji launched his campaign, he called Hindavī Svarājya (“self-rule of Indian people or the sons of the soil”, meaning independence from foreign rule) . This is again identifying on ethno-cultural grounds with a sense of Geo-Politics in it.

The Viṣṇupurāṇa & several other purāṇas and the Mahābhārata geo-ethnically self-identifies with Indian Subcontinent , which they refer to as Bhārata or Bhāratavarśa or Bhārata-Khaṇḍa.

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।। 
“The country (varṣam) that lies north of the (Indian) ocean and south of the snowy mountains (Himalayas) is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.”

The Canonical Hindu literature also identifies the others(foreigners) as maleccha, dasyu, anārya, which are all identifications based on cultural norms, ethnicity, geography, rather than theology like in Abrahamic scriptures.

In the the 18th Century Maharajadhiraja Prithvi Narayan Shah self proclaimed the newly unified Kingdom of Nepal as “Asal Hindustan” (“Real Land of Hindus”) due to North India being ruled by the Islamic Mughal rulers. The self proclamation was done to refer to his country as being inhabitable for Hindus. He also referred to the rest of Northern India as Mughlan (Country of Mughals) and called the region infiltrated by Muslim foreigners. This is yet another example Geo-cultural-political self identification of the term Hindu.

The word Hindu is absolutely absent from any major significant Indian religious scripture. Although Some Right Wing blogs list some obsecure texts mentioning the word Hindu, but give no source link to those texts, but anyways those identifications also are primarily geo-cultural, and from texts which aren’t centered on theology.

Is Hinduism a single Religion?

Before Going into that, first lets see what is a religion. A religion is a particular system of faith and worship.

A religion has a common single founder/source/originator/main personality or prophet; a theological uniformity; a core foundational belief which is the basis of their faith; a theological self identity. The different sects usually came into being due to schisms over conflicts over interpertations of teachings of religion. For Christians it is the Jesus and Nicene Creed; For muslims it is the Muhammad and the Shahada; For Communists it is Karl Marx and his manifesto.

Now lets come to hinduism.

As I have described in previous that Hinduism surpasses every parameter, every characteristic of a conventional world religion.

Hinduism is a tradition having a “complex, organic, multileveled and sometimes internally inconsistent nature”. Hinduism does not have a “unified system of belief encoded in a declaration of faith or a creed”, but is rather an umbrella term comprising the plurality of religious phenomena of India. According to the Supreme Court of India,

Unlike other religions in the World, the Hindu religion does not claim any one Prophet, it does not worship any one God, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one act of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the traditional features of a religion or creed. It is a way of life and nothing more”.

Part of the problem with a single definition of the term Hinduism is the fact that Hinduism does not have a founder. It is a synthesis of various traditions, the “Brahmanical orthopraxy, the renouncer traditions and popular or local traditions”.

Vijñānabhikṣu tried to create some sort of theosophical synthesis from Bhedābheda and certain elements of Yoga and Sāṃkhya. But Theism is also difficult to use as a unifying doctrine for Hinduism, because while some Hindu philosophies postulate a theistic ontology of creation, other Hindus are or have been atheists and also there are radical theological contradictions within the different denominations of Hinduism.

Now I have seen many people saying diversity exists within Christianity too, so how come Hinduism is any different. The diversity in Christianity is not ideological, theological, it is mainly differences in certain customs which happened due to spread of christianity into different cultures and christianization of those civilizations or adoption of there cultural practices into christian converts; or due to schisms happened over interpertations over a certain things or over clashes over political interests with the vatican church. But all the different Denominations of Christianity, be it protestant or catholic, or eastern orthodox , all have the same ideology, theology and core foundational beliefs, i.e. Nicene Creed (Monotheism, belief in Jesus as the prophesied Messaih & son of God, the virgin birth and original sin). Same with Muslims, i.e. šahādah (Monotheism, Belief in Muhammad as the last Messenger and Quran as the final testament) , is the core foundational belief , which is common in all sects. These religions begin on a particular axiom.
But there is no Hindu equivalent for any of that. There are no axioms in Hinduism There is no Hindu equivalent for the Bible/Quran. There is no Hindu equivalent of the Jesus / Muhammad. There is no Hindu Friday. There is no Hindu ‘ 10 commandments’. There are no universal compulsory dogmas in Hinduism. There is No Uniform conception of a good ideal life. A Hindu can claim adherence to a religion without an established church/institution or priestly papacy, He is free to free to reject the rituals and customs; Hinduism does not oblige its adherent to demonstrate his faith by any visible sign, by subsuming his identity in any collectivity, not even by a specific day or time or frequency of worship. (There is no Hindu Pope, no Hindu Vatican, no Hindu catechism, not even a Hindu Sunday.) Hinduism offers a veritable smorgasbord of options to the worshipper of divinities to adore and to pray to, of rituals to observe (or not), of customs and practices to honour (or not), of fasts to keep(or not), dogmas to follow (or not). A hindu is free to subscribe to a creed that is free of the restrictive dogmas of holy writ, one that refuses to be shackled to the limitations of a single volume of holy revelation. There are simply no obligatory binding requirements for being a hindu.

The traditions Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Gāṇapatya,Smārtism,Sourism, etc are independent and autonomous belief systems like different religions, self contained religious constellations; with each having own unique customs, traditions, rituals, lifestyle, key festivals, mythology tales.

There are also many orthodox communities who worship antagonists from Hindu mythology, such as Duryodhana, Śakuni, Rāvaṇa, Karṇa, Mahābali, etc. There are several shrines dedicated to these figures, even festivals dedicated to them. Which negative mythological character is worshipped by some people in India?,

Is there a Hindu or a non-Hindu sect that believes that Ravana is a Hero and Rama is a villain?

There are many community rituals, customs which are practiced within a particular caste group only. Many key rituals like wedding differ in many castes, ethinicities, sects. Like a Bengali Wedding is very different from a Gujarati wedding. So the diversity is not just in belief systems, but also exists accross different castes, ethnic groups.

There are many prominent mainstream Hindu customs which are not there in any scripture. Kumbh Mela, which has a recorded history of atleast 2000 years, has no explicit mention in any religious scripture. The Kanwad Yatra, a major annual Śaiva pilgrimage is not prescribe or mentioned in any scripture. I couldn’t find any prescription to Cow-Worship either in any Hindu Scripture, but its being done since ages. In North India , on Dīpāvalī, there is a special Lakṣmī-Gaṇeśa Pūjā is done every year. This Pūjā is not prescribed in any scripture, but is still widely observed. Another such example is SatyaNārāyaṇa Vrata, etc. So Hinduism is not book oriented, but a complex and interwoven confederation of different sects, communities who hold certain doctrines in common.
The denominations of Hinduism, states Lipner, are unlike those found in major religions of the world, because Hindu denominations are fuzzy with certain individuals practising more than one, and he suggests the term “Hindu polycentrism”. The conflict between Vaiṣṇavism & Śaivism is not about the true interepertation of the religion, its about which deity is the ultimate/ supreme creator.

The difficulties to understand the complexities of Hinduism can be best seen in Al-Biruni’s writings. He identifies the Buddhists as Shamaniya, a seperate tradition, but struggles to distinguish them with mainstream Hindus, as both had shared ideas, and fluid boundaries. He further struggles to describe the diverse traditions within Hinduism.

Hindu has no founder and no management structure, or Central Command and Control syndicate. Gurus are all independent and their authority derives from those devotees who trust in them and support them financially.

Hindus have a library not a single book and they cover various aspects of life. Many people ignorantly assume that Bhagvad Gita is the holy book of hindus,but it is an erroneous assumption. Bhagvad gita is just one of the many gitas that are present in hindu literature. Here I have listed around 60 such gitas, 14 of them being the mahabharat itself. List of Different Gitas and The holy book of hindus?

Hindus have no dogmas unconditionally binding all of them, but rather a real chaos of different views simaltaneously as equally valid.

And Hindus have complete freedom of choice to believe or not to believe and to worship what, when and how we like. Hinduism is shaped by a vast collection of texts, oral traditions, folklores, moral examples, human & divine stories, to respect and look upto, while not treating them as unquestionablly perfect and flawless. Hindus have complete freedom of speech to analyze, criticize and to reject whatever they disagree with. Hindus can even poke fun at the gods, compose comical poetry and sing songs of abuse to them (nindā-stuti).

The social dynamics of Kumbha Mela illustrates how Hinduism works. The Army goes in and sets up the basic infrastructure and then withdraws. Millions of people start arriving and setting up camp, restaurants appear, first-aid stations go up, shops and markets are set up. A hundred languages can be heard and a thousand different sects all living side by side – interacting, transacting, cooperating, coordinating, while professing radically different doctrines and practices.

There is no one in charge, no organizing body, no supervisors, no moderators, no authority figures, no controllers – everything just happens, functions like an organic unit and then overnight dismantles and decamps.

So here, there is no single unified tradition with a single root, but various autochthonous traditions which have come into contact with each other over time.