The Myth Goes Viral

The Myth:
There is no such thing as Hinduism
What we call Hinduism is a construct of modern period made for Political advantage
Objective was to impose a top down homogeneity that supresses: Rights of women,
Non-Hindu religions and minorities.
Process:
Large coterie of writers produces materials that reiterates a given supposition as
common knowledge
Mutual references to provide semblance of credibility
So the academic literature gets filled with assertions and reassertions
With the passage of time core thesis is taken for granted and requires decreasing rigor
to prove it.
*It is shaped by Abrahamic traditions but the exact process of evolution may differ but all see
it as a process resting historically on chaotic pre-colonial conditions defying categorization.
Richard King
He presents his work as a critique of colonialism but believes Hinduism as a western inspired
abstraction with no resemblance to Indian religious beliefs and practices. He disqualifies the
existence of unified dharma and further states the notion of Dharma as unifying the diverse
Hindu religious traditions as moot (all of which define the concept in their groups, dynamics
and identity). In this he unconsciously applies the Judeo-Christian normative idea of religion
one way, one path and one absolute history. He writes that the modern nation-state is a
product of European socio-political and economic developments of 16th century onwards and
to achieve true decolonization, India must revert back to collection of hundred separate and
fragmented groups because India has become a nation of elitists. But he never identifies in his
work who these tribal people are and what their own faith is like.
Whiteness syndrome: seeing itself as universal and non-white civilizations as lacking agency
and elevating itself as the voice of the downtrodden.
He notes that colonial academicians and administrators in India emphasized the teaching of
Protestant religious texts and this emphasis skewed their understanding of Indian culture due
to use of rigid frameworks and methodologies. The emphasis was placed on translating texts
and compiling critical editions of Indian works ignoring the oral and folk traditions.
King claims Sanskrit for damaging other Indian languages but English language is
hegemonic.
Similarly he claims Christianity to be the first religion to develop the abstract religious ideas
which were then imposed to India through colonialism. He claims that even Mysticism was
defined by Christian European power politics and imposed on India during colonial times.
This is partly true as the reverse effect of Hinduism and Buddhism on European
enlightenment thought was there, which shaped this category of mysticism.

He challenges the claims of that Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagawad-Gita holds universal ideas
and ethics as false and that these are planted by modern Western educated Indians to build a
nation that appears legitimate by western standards. He asserts like Agenanda Bharti, that the
leaders such as Vivekananda, Gandhi, etc. developed this new kind of Vedanta and used this
to counteract effeminacy of the Bengali male. The goal of the neo-hindus was to claim parity
with the western religions to reform the decadent religion. As a result of that the Hinduism
satisfied the criteria for membership established by the western scholars and is allowed to
enter the arena of world religions.
According to King, Hindu mysticism is inherently flawed: the soul is seen as feminine and in
need of surrendering to the divine seen as masculine, so as it is nothing less that strategy for
male domination. However, in his view Eckharts Christian mysticism is standard and
superior because of potential for ethics which is lacking in Shankaras Vedanta.
He ends on a patronizing note with extending the credit for invention of Hinduism to the
natives of India and the indigenous Brahmanical ideology. He is fixated on the internal
European conflict between history centralism and reason but forgets that spiritual knowing is
neither based on historical texts nor on reasoning alone, but on the rishis inner sense of
Adhyatma-Vidya.
Abrahamic religions considers participation of God in history as essential to spiritual progress
and for spiritual confirmation they rely entirely on ancient historical events and third personal
testimonies. Whereas, Indian traditions are alive emerging from meditation and considers it is
an ongoing process. He dismisses the Halbfass views of elusive, yet undeniable coherence in
dharma on the basis of lack of explanation for the basis for that unity. He explicitly turns
down the notion of soul or essence and claims it to be invented in 19th century.
Brain Pennington
Author of book Was Hinduism Invented? Most of the book contains the biographical details
of leading missionaries and colonial officers. He shows that there was an academic
government nexus and church academic nexus in British institutions. Most of the prominent
idea in India was revolved around the satanic idols, there was a widespread suspicion of
Hindu rituals as evil idols. Missionaries fanned the flames by sending back sensational
reports of their encounters and heroic accomplishments, and they proposed the road map for
what can be done in India.
He then argues that Vivekananda copied this colonial material and then along with the India
Brahmins created Hinduism. Hs criticism comes in the form that there were several
precolonial Hindu movements, which shows that the Hindu unity existed before prior to the
colonialism. He is among the members who claim to know the exact date of the neoHinduism i.e. the early 19th century.
Samachar Candrika made sustained efforts in constructing Hinduism and it represented those
influential elite Hindus who wanted to oppose the missionaries and reshape Hinduism
without losing its traditional character. It opposed the Samachar Darpan the mouth piece of
Christian seminary and the group of Eurocentric Indians such as Ram Mohan Roy.
Peter van der Veer, Sheldon Pollock and others

Peter gave full support to the facts that colonial constructions became internalized by the
Indians. He speaks of the role of the Indologists in forming a kind of Hindu canon on JudeoChristian models. He developed a view that Western Indologists developed a view of Indian
society based primarily on the study of Sanskrit texts in collaboration with the Brahmin
elites. They also assumed that the Brahmnins represented the entire society. This led to the
impression of a static society with no development over time. Similar notion can be applied
to the Europeans and the Christianity. In his subsequent book he admits in the beginning that
the influence of the India and Europe is both ways, but fails as is it only explained the
influence of British in India and not the other way around. He is one of the scholars who
claims that Hinduism is created for sinister political motives with Swami Chinmayananda as
one of these nationalists.
Van der Veers thesis was
Europeans and Brahmins elevated Vedanatas importance for mutual benefit. This later
backfired on the Europeans because Indians used the constructive idea called Hinduism to:
1. Nationalism against British rule;
2. Dupe the west into adopting various Indian ideas into the west.
Whereas the implications for India were:
1. Denies the tribal people their authentic beliefs;
2. Culminated the Vishva Hindu Parishad, which is anti-Muslim ad anti-secular.
Pollock
Secular Sanskrit vs religious Sanskrit. He sees religious mantras as anti-secular and causing
caste based oppression. He sees secular Sanskrit as representing the flowering of culture, arts
and sophistication. He got Padma Shri from Indian government followed which he got huge
grant from Infosys for Indian classical languages. He wants to protect Sanskrit but by
rejecting Hinduism. He gave the doctrine called Liberation Philology which turns Sanskrit
into activism breaking India into regions of conflict. It involves the reinterpretation of the
Sanskrit texts to expose the oppression in them and to help liberate the minorities, Dalits and
the women.
Jayant Lele traces the origins of the neo-Hinduism to the desire of the Brahmins to protect
their position by casting their work in terms of liberal Christianity and the utilitarianism.
Reza Pirbhai supports the notion and drags BJP into this and concludes that Hinduism is the
youngest religion in this world.
Christophe Jaffrelot sees Gandhi as the central player in politicizing neo-Hinduism. He
considers Balganagdhar Tilak took the nationalist discourse into violent direction. Then
Nehru took the Gandhis idea towards the European secularism and away from the religion.
Through this churning emerged the Hindu nationalism.
Meera Nanda a Marxist builds on Rambachans criticism of Vivekanandas association of
anubhava with scientific empiricism. He claims that theories of modern science contradict the
Vedanta and thus, is worse than the Abrahamic religions in that sense.
David Gorden White author of book Sinister Yogis, claims that yoga is to attain the powers
over others, including the power for sexual exploitation.

Other set of authors supports this by claiming that yoga practices are based on western
gymnastics and YMCA influence in India. Indians felt that they are physically weak and their
leaders brought these practices to boost their physical strength.
Hindu leaders echo the Chorus
Samitha Basu maintains that Hinduism was a political strategy. Frank Morales states that
there are two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today and attempt to rescue the real
Hinduism from the clutches of the modern Hinduism, thus rehashing the Hacker Rembachan
position. Some sees contemporary Hinduism as a destruction of traditional Hinduism and
exacerbated the internal divisiveness. They are more concerned about defending the purity of
given Hindu sampradays or philosophical schools. Hindu groups often give grants to protect
the Hinduism to the people who propagate the myth of neo-Hinduism. e.g. De Michelis in her
book A history of Modern Yoga alleges Vivekananda of publishing the Raja Yoga on the lines
of western influences.
Some academic defenders of contemporary Hinduism
Arvind Sharma has serious problems with the claims of the Hacker-Rambachan camp e.g. use
of eclecticism and points that there is double standard in work where one finds other religions
to be eclectic but not ones own. Sharma argues that even in traditional Advaita the
knowledge of Brahmin was accessible to all through smriti, and that the direct experience of
Brahman is possible without the recourse to sruti.
Brain Smith states that theologians of all faiths tend of make reinterpretations and such
approach of singling out can then be extended to all the other religions. Religions do change
over time and the conceptualization of any particular religion will inevitably be altered by the
history. He states that contemporary Hindus have constructed a vision of their religion no less
open minded than the definitions put forth by the main stream Indology. He also adds a
political dimension to the religion and argues that then all religions of the world are
constructs as Hinduism. Krishna Prakash Gupta argues that Vivekanandas Vedanta was
Western only in appearance and Hindu in concept and organisation.
Will Sweetman argues that the biases for Hinduism are based on the assumptions of the
Protestant Christianity. The failure if Hinduism to fit into the definitions of the religion in the
west should not be seen as the problem but it should lead to the scholars to reject the very
definition of the religion. He finds that many scholars in their attempts to rescue Hinduism
from Christianity uses Christian ideas.
Thus, it may be due to the lack of sufficient understanding of the Hinduism in the post
colonialism.