1

IS HINDUISM A CONTINUATION OF THE VEDIC RELIGION?

Dr.J.Kuruvachira
Many proponents of Hindutva ideology staunchly argue that Hinduism of today is a
continuation of the Vedic religion. Strenuous efforts are being made to make a neat and
un-interrupted link between the Vedic religion and the Hinduism of today. For example,
in the NCERT Social Sciences textbook for Class VI (2002) we read: They [the Vedas]
are also called the Hindu religious literature and are revered. What is argued is that the
Aryans created the Hindu religion and civilisation so that the Hindus of today are the
lineal ancestors of the Aryans. But this article is an attempt to show that the belief
widespread belief that the Hinduism of today a continuation of the Vedic religion has no
real historical foundation and that the religion we know today as Hinduism is of a much
later origin.
Origin of the term Hindu
The eminent historian Romila Thapar states that the term Hindu is originally a
geographical nomenclature. In the Arabic texts where the term Hindu is initially used,
refers to the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, the land across the Sindhu or Indus
river. Al-Hind was, therefore, a geographical identity, and the Hindus were all the people
who lived on this land. Thus, the term Hindu essentially came to mean the other in the
eyes of the new arrivals. It was only gradually that the term was used to describe those
who professed a religion other than Islam and Christianity. It is also noteworthy that the
use of the word Hindu in non-Islamic sources is known probably only from the fifteenth
century A.D. Gerald James Larson argues that the term Hindu became a term of
administrative convenience when the rulers of Arab, Turkish, Afghan and Mughal origin
all Muslims had to differentiate between the believers and the rest.
Vedic people did not call themselves Hindus
It is a well-known fact that the Vedic people not only did not call themselves Hindus but
also did not possess the essential characteristics of the Hinduism of today. However, in
order to legitimise the antiquity of Hinduism, Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) insisted
on going back to the Vedas. V.D.Savarkar (1902-1966) argued that the word Hindu is
derived from the Vedic appellation of Saptasindhus. Swami Vivekananda (1862-1902)
claimed that Hinduism is the religion of the Vedas. Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950)
believed that the Vedas are the foundation of the Sanatana Dharma.. The American born
Hindutva ideologue David Frawley argues that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the
world with a tradition going back to the very beginning of what we know of as history
over five thousand years ago. Frawley also equates the Vedic religion with Hindu
dharma. This view of Hinduism is also systematically taught in schools. In the NCERT
school textbook for Class VI the students are told: Hinduism is a very old religion. It is
also known as Sanatana Dharma i.e. the Eternal Spiritual Tradition of India. On the basis
of material remains found in the Harappan Civilisation it can be said that many of the
religious aspects of Hinduism began then.

Difference between Vedic religion and Hinduism

The above explanation concerning the antiquity of Hinduism is too simplistic and it
neglects many doctrinal and practical differences between the Vedic religion and modern
Hinduism. Modern Hinduism has drifted miles away from the Vedic faith so that the two
seem to be two distinct faiths. When we carefully examine the two faiths, it is not
difficult to discover that there is no noticeable continuity of Hinduism from the religion
of the Vedas. In other words, the distinctive characteristics of Hinduism of today cannot
be traced in the Vedic literature. Besides, although the Vedas are revered as sacred texts,
there are many people in India who do not know what belief in the Vedas means. In
most cases, the acquaintance of the Hindus with the Vedas is limited to the few hymns
that are recited in temples and household liturgies.
Vedas are not the important sacred texts for the Hinduism of today
The Vedas as a body of scripture contain many contradictions and they are fragmentary
in nature. For most Hindus of today, scriptures like the Bhagavadgita, Ramayana,
Mahabharata and Puranas are more attractive and appealing than the Vedas. In addition,
the gods and goddesses they worship differ considerably from the Vedic ones. The
collection of hymns called Vedas written in praise of certain deities by poets over several
centuries does not seem to have much significance for the Hindus of today, except for
scholars, though currently frantic efforts are being made by the proponents of Hindutva to
revive the study of the Vedas like, the Vedic rituals, Vedic mathematics, Vedic astrology,
Vedic Sanskrit, Vedic astronomy, etc.
Most Vedic gods do not find a place in modern Hinduism
Dayananda Saraswati was the first modern Hindu thinker to emphasise the importance
of going back to the Vedas in order to bring about social reforms in Hindu society and to
purify Hinduism of its many aberrations. Much of the modern Hinduism is puranic
Hinduism. Vedic gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni, Soma and the like, whom the Vedic
people worshipped, hardly have any significance in present day Hinduism. The gods and
goddesses important to the Hindus of today are Ram, Krishna, Kali, Ganesh, Hanuman,
Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and the respective consorts of the last three, namely, Saraswati,
Lakshmi and Shakti. None of these deities figured prominently in the Vedic pantheon and
some of them are clearly non-Vedic. The major gods of Hinduism like Vishnu and Shiva
are non-Aryan in origin. Though they may have belonged to the Vedic tradition they
played no major role in the Vedas. K.M.Panikkar, says that it is proved beyond doubt that
the more important religious sects among the Hindus, like Vaishnavism, Saivism and so
on, did not have a Vedic origin, but had come into existence in comparatively recent
times.
Again, there are evidences that originally Shiva and the cult of the Mother Goddess
belonged to the religion of the Indus Valley people. Heinrich von Stietencron is of the
opinion that the substance of the Vishnu and Shiva cult is a melting of at least two
cultures, if not three, namely, the Aryan culture, the pre-Aryan culture of the Ganges

Valley (probably indirectly), and the Indus Valley culture. These three cultures were
closely knit by the first century of Christianity and in the later period underwent further
developments, and probably also a fourth tradition of the indigenous tribes that stood
outside the four classes of the caste system as outcastes. Besides, the Vedic worshipper
did not use temples and idols as Hindus of today do. For them, the sacrificial rituals were
more important than temple or idol worship. In addition, as Koenraad Elst observes, the
major Hindu feasts of today are based on the epic feats of Rama and Krishna and the
Puranic lore pertaining to Shiva and the Goddess.
Reincarnation was not a Vedic belief
Belief in reincarnation which is central to Hinduism of today is not really attested to in
the Vedas, though they hint at life after death. Benjamin Walker says: The doctrine of
transmigration as elaborated in Hinduism has no place in the Vedic hymns. C.K.Raja
also affirms that in the early Vedic literature, there is no express mention of the doctrine
of transmigration. It is in the Upanisads that it appears for the first time. The Rig Veda
speaks of two paths for the souls of the deceased, namely, the path of the gods (devayana)
and the path of the fathers (pitriyana). Those who go by the former enjoy immortality and
there is no return to physical life after that. In fact, the Vedic man longed for this state of
life. Whereas those who go by the latter path, unite with the fathers and then return to
earth, after having enjoyed the fruits of his deeds. Raja further states that in the entire Rig
Veda consisting of about 10,500 verses there is only one occasion where there is
mention of a return to this world after death. What is implied here is that it cannot be
taken as an important teaching of the Rig Veda. Bal Gangadhar Tilak also notes that the
Vedas speak of the path of the gods(devayana) and path of the fathers (pitriyana) for
the souls of the deceased.
Doctrine of avatara and caste system are not Vedic in origin
The theory of avatara (descend) of gods which is very important to modern Hinduism
is non-Vedic. Benjamin Walker observes: Significantly, the term avatara [] is not
found in the earlier Vedic texts, and is absent from the older Sanskrit glossaries. The
caste system which is so integral to Hinduism, was also not practiced in the Vedic times.
There is hardly any evidence of rigid caste system in the Vedas. It is argued that the
purushasukta hymn of the Rig Veda (X.90) which is often referred to in order to give a
religious sanction to caste system, was a later interpolation. The Vedas, however, speak of
various classes of people, which appear to have been names of professions, and they were
not hereditary. O.P.Gupta says: The very concept of castes by birth, upper/lower castes,
superior/inferior castes, outcastes, untouchables, dalits, etc. are clearly prohibited by
Rigveda.
Taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin
The taboo on cow slaughter and beef eating which have become sensitive issues for the
Hindus of today did not exist in Vedic times. Here the observation of Koenraad Elst is

apt. He says: criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the
Vedic seers as non-Hindus. The question whether the Vedic people practiced cow
slaughter is debated among Hindu revivalists and traditionalists. Elst opines that it was
precisely because the cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed
cows and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that
cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef eating was not a taboo in Vedic times.
As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today,
such as, the doctrine of re-incarnation, avatara (descent) of gods, caste system, taboo
on cow slaughter and beef eating were absent in the Vedic religion. K.M.Panikkar holds a
similar view. He says: It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had
no developed idea of caste system, [.] The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of
later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient
India.
Vedic religion is distinct from the Hinduism of today
Hence, it follows that the Vedic religion deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct
religion with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs and practices without
inter-linking it with modern Hinduism. Perhaps it is right to maintain that the Mimamsa
school which is concerned with the investigation of the Vedic texts, their correct
interpretation and the meticulous performance of the Vedic rituals and ceremonies has
preserved and defended a part of the heritage of the Vedic tradition. The Vedanta school
also may have received a part of the inspiration from the Vedas. For the rest of the Hindu
philosophical schools and religious sects, the influence of the Vedas is nominal. However,
in as much as elements from the Vedas have influenced some aspects of Hinduism, it may
be considered as one of the many factors influencing modern Hinduism. But by no means
can it be maintained that Hinduism of today has its direct ancestry in the Vedic religion.
Therefore, Hinduism of Vedic times is an imagined community. Hinduism of today is of a
much later origin, and a historical view of Indian religions would endorse a dichotomy
between Vedic religion and contemporary Hinduism.
Role of Adi Sanakra in the formation of Hinduism
Hinduism does not have a long ancestry as is often presumed or propagated by the
Hindutva ideologues. In fact, historically, religions like Buddhism and Jainism can claim
greater antiquity than the Hinduism of today. Hinduism began to take a systematic form
from the time of Adi Sankara (8 th century A.D) of Kaladi. In this sense, he may be
considered as the founder of Hinduism. Ninian Smart affirms that Hinduism as we
know today is of recent origin. He states: Hinduism did not really achieve its status as a
coherent, though still baffling, religious complex until after the establishment of the
[British] Raj.
In discussing the Vedic religion it is also to be remembered that in the course of history,
many non-Aryan elements entered into the Vedic religion. The Vedic Aryans freely
borrowed elements from the culture and the society around them. But we cannot say with
precision, which are the non-Aryan elements in the Vedic religion. Therefore, the thesis

of the direct ancestry of Hinduism of today from Vedic religion is to be considered as a

myth purported by Hindutva.
Conclusion
Upon close examination we discover that the religion of the Vedas was not the religion
of the Hindus, nor were the Vedic people Hindus, nor will the Hindus of today approve
the replacement of the term Hinduism with Vedic Religion. None can say exactly
when the Aryans became Hindus because neither the name Hindu nor its major beliefs
and practices existed in the Vedic times. To this one must add the marginal place the
Vedic gods occupy in todays Hindu pantheon. In addition, as we have seen, the Vedas
themselves are not attractive to most of todays Hindus as sacred texts. The Ramayana,
Mahabharata, Bhagavadgita, Puranas and Manusmriti, may have more to do with the
Hinduism of today than the Vedas.
Thus, it is clear that there is no direct ancestry of modern Hinduism traceable in the
Vedas, though it does have some influence on it. R.Thapar says: The Vedic corpus
reflects the archetypal religion of those who called themselves aryas, and which,
although it contributed to facets of latter day Hinduism, was nevertheless distinct.
(The author is a senior lecturer in Philosophy of religion, Phenomenology of religion
and Indian culture. He can be contacted at kurusdb@rediff.mail.com)