Defining Religions: my thoughts on "Fears for Democracy in India"

Martha Nussbaum published an article in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, an excerpt from her book on her observations of the 2002 Godhra massacre. (Summary of the incident: 50-odd Hindus die in train fire in Gujarat, provoking mobs to storm through nearby Muslim neighborhoods and brutally kill scores and scores of people.) Nussbaum's article is quite good, although commenting on Godhra now seems a little dated given the outburst it prompted just after (and even while) it was occurring. Nussbaum is aware of the subject's datedness-- she says her purpose in writing the book is to make Americans aware of of the massacre. I think that undersells her particular interest on determining the causes of sectarian and ethnic hatred, particularly in democratic countries like Indian and the United States. It's a fascinating issue, and one that bears examining, particularly in the current horror of world politics.

Nussbaum's article struck a nerve with me, though, in a passing sentence on Hinduism. After debunking the RSS's nonsensically edenic view of Indian/Hindu history, Nussbaum presents her own: "...the people who spoke Sanskrit almost in certainly migrated into the subcontinent from outside, finding indigenous people there, probably the ancestors of the Dravidian peoples of South India. Hindus are no more indigenous than Muslims."

This, in my mind, is an utterly ridiculous statement, and is the kind of thing that absolutely outrages many of the generally tolerant Hindus I know. 'Hinduism' is a weird, retroactive moniker imposed on a vast panoply of spiritual practices and observances by a couple of mostly-ignorant British missionaries. However, it has been an accepted term now for a couple hundred years, and, more importantly, the religious practices of the 'Vedic' Aryans became intwined with 'indigenous' spiritual practices. This proto-Hinduism explains how 9th-century Tamil mystics (aaLvaars) could write poetry about temples from all regions of the subcontinent, and why Sanskrit epics like the Ramayana were translated and engrained into various regional languages and cultures. To equate Hinduism with a very narrow definition of Vedic Aryanism is not only impossible, it's an insult to the Dravidic culture Nussbaum invokes only to forget. I'd like to point out that British missionaries also tried to posit Hinduism--or at least Sanskrit-- as a foreign language in order to justify evangelical activity in India.

I'm not arguing this point in order to justify Hinduism's 'rights' in India over Islam's. That is nonsensical. But Nussbaum's statement is the kind that perpetuates the feeling among many Hindus that they are the perpetual underdogs of religious history. The Hindus that I've talked to (not as a scholar, but as a friend or relative) cannot accept Islam and Hinduism as equally foreign religions. But they might be willing to concede that Azim the tailor has as much in common with Aurangazebe as I do. My personal observation is that many Hindus feel like their religion isn't really respected anywhere, including the Western world (how else can you explain the Hindutva's 'Christianization' of Hinduism?). Tragically, the hapless Muslim and Christian minorities in India are the ones to feel the brunt of this fury.

I'm going to bring this post to an awkward end: it's too long as is, and I also realize that the solution to this problem of Hindu-Muslim unity is as elusive to me as it has been to a host of far more brilliant thinkers, including Nussbaum. Her article is often-insightful and interesting, but it is also an example of the danger of taking on a subject whose history stretches back some nine hundred years, and which has been characterized by immense achievement and tragedy on both sides.

Note: Nussbaum's article can be read here, however, you need to be a subscriber.