Modern Hinduism
© Anup Mukherjee i3pep.org
[A version of this (somewhat extended) exposition was published in the Encyclopedia of Religion and War (Routledge)]
Hinduism in modern times has undergone tremendous reformist changes and has tended to focus on peace rather than war. Though there has not been any scriptural development in Hinduism in relation to war, one stream of Hinduism espousing a theory similar to just war developed into the separate religion of Sikhism. Ancient doctrines of war and conflict continue to be important, but hardly if that has motivated political conflicts.
To put it in a bit of detail, Ancient doctrines like Digvijaya, and practices like Aswamedha Sacrifices were related to imperialism - such has not been a factor of modern history. However a few times some zealous people would keep indicating that the political boundaries of Ancient India encompassed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, and sometimes such maps would get displayed openly in political rallies of the right wingers. But then such depiction does not influence the politics, because the political leaders are well aware of launching such superfluous projects. Such issues are irrelevant even in the context of the international relations and diplomacy of India with its neighbours. Yet, such things do feed the popular imagination regarding the “Ancient Glory". Such ancient glory are relevant not merely in the context of history, but also in the context of religion - though the most popular fallacy exploited by such leaders is the fact that during those ancient times (BC), there was no Islam, not even Christianity.
In modern times, India was under British imperialism from 1757 to 1947. As part of this interaction, Hinduism was invoked on certain occasions of conflict. This has become part of political development of India and not gone into anything of scriptural significance. Five things-
1) British Imperialism was a development that did not have any precedent in the scriptures- so scriptural motivation would not exist in the fight against the imperial power. Moreover scriptures written in Sanskrit were hardly understood by an illiterate population (the literacy rate in 1910 was around 10%). Many lower caste sections of Hindus were even devoid of right to listen to the scriptures! However the “ancient glory” of India did provide motivation in the sense that cause of Colonization was seen as degeneration of society in the modern times.
2) Events as part of Imperial interlude led to use of Hindu motifs and idioms. This interaction happened in the relam of culture as well as politics. But this has not led to creation of “scriptures".
3) In modern times many texts have been written relating to Hindu religion, but unlike the medieval times, when texts like Hanuman Chalisa etc were written (that is now considered as part of Hindu scripture), nothing emerged in modern times as part of cultural or political development that has been accepted as part of Hindu scripture.
4) By the term “scripture"- I mean text that is considered sacred. Though in modern times various sects and sub-sects have emerged and such sects and sub-sects have their own rules and texts written by the originator of such sects. The sect followers hold such text with reverence, but such texts cannot be considered to be sacred for the Hinduism as a whole or even comparable with texts like Ramayana or Bhagwad Gita. The only important development has been copious writings and commentaries on Hindu philosophy.
5) Finally, in modern times there has not been anything like a “holy war” in the case of Hinduism. The struggle against imperialism was a secular one, mostly led by political leaders who had education in the west. There has although been the conflict between Islamists and the British imperialists based on “holy war"- for example the Wahabi movement, and the Khilafat movement, among others, but then - these aspects are out of scope of this article.
The focus of religious leaders was reform, and British imperialism hastened that process. It would be incorrect to presume that if British were not present, reform would not happen or that reform happened under pressure of the British. Infact, on many instances British would support the orthodox sections and act in a reactionary manner. Hindu theologians and leaders were concerned with combating Christian missionary propaganda, that was an element of imperialism, on theological grounds. This was done by engaging in debates with the missionaries and at the same time by bringing in reforms to the different institutions of Hinduism. These reforms started in Bengal province, where Ram Mohun Roy (1772 -1833) initiated the Brahmo Samaj movement.
However, religious motivation was an important factor in the eruption of the civil rebellion of 1857 against the British. The rabid missionary criticism of Hindu religion was often extreme and people were sure that the British wanted to defile the religion and caste of the local population. The 1857 uprising started as a mutiny in Bengal province over the issue of the greased cartridges of the newly introduced Enfield rifles. The soldiers had to bite off the covering of the cartridge to use it. It was a widespread belief that this cartridge wrapper was made from materials that included the fat of cows and pigs. This was defiling for the Hindus in the army. This mutiny developed into a civil rebellion against British imperialism in which Hindus and Muslims fought side by side and also proclaimed the Mughal emperor as their leader. Modern historians see this event not as a religious war, but as the first war of independence.
Meanwhile, reform measures among Hindus addressed improving the status of women and bringing about equality in society by reforming the caste system. The two most influential reformers of the late nineteenth century were Dayananda Sarasvati (1824 -1883) and Vivekananda(1863 -1902). They were also influential as sources of inspiration to the freedom fighters opposing British colonialism.
At the political level religion came to be used as a rallying point as exemplified by B. G. Tilak’s (1856 - 1920) use of the Ganapati festival from 1893 onwards to propagate nationalist ideas. In such festivals, patriotic songs and speeches were incorporated that tended to radicalize the people. Another aspect was the use of religion by some of the revolutionary organizations, that included swearing oaths by religion in pursuing revolutionary objectives against the imperial regime. By the 1920s, revolutionary organizations were influenced more by leftist ideology than by religion. But popular vernacular literature would use Hindu imagery to invoke patriotic sentiments against imperial rule; for example, India was depicted as a divine mother, Bharat Mata, that had been enslaved.
As imperialism developed, the imperial masters created a division between Hindus and Muslims. This on various occasions led to sectarian violence on religious grounds. The response of Hinduism to such developments was that of Gandhian nonviolence. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 - 1948) was a political leader and social reformer with deep roots in the Hindu religious traditions. He brought to the fore the concept of Ahimsa (nonviolence) as the theoretical and doctrinal dimension of his struggle against British imperialism and as a means of bringing about harmony between different sections of the population. The tradition of Ahimsa has roots in the ancient scriptures of Hinduism. For Gandhi nonviolence was soul-force and was the positive kind of love. This meant that one should try to remove the evil, but not hate the evildoer. His concept of Ahimsa was concomitant with his other formulations like that of Satyagraha (meaning sticking to the truth or truth-force) even in situations of great adversity.
These concepts were useful in the struggle against imperialism as they helped to mobilize large numbers of unarmed people without any fear of the weapons of the state. Though Gandhi would draw inspiration from Hindu traditions, his nonviolence was not sectarian. In the latter part of his life, he also extended his nonviolence to the extent of being a pacifist who opposed all war. This also meant that he was for disarmament and against the atom bomb. For him the atom bomb symbolized “the most diabolical use of science". Gandhi mentioned this in his journal - Harijan, 29-9-1946.: “I regard the employment of the atom bomb for the wholesale destruction of men, women and children as the most diabolical use of science.” In an another article (Harijan, 7-7-46), he wrote: “The moral to be legitimately drawn from the supreme tragedy of the bomb is that it will not be destroyed by counter-bombs even as violence cannot be by counter-violence. Mankind has to get out of violence only through non-violence. Hatred can be overcome only by love. Counter-hatred only increases the surface as well as the depth of hatred.". A related aspect of his thought was tolerance and equality between different religions; for him different religions were equally sacred. This doctrine of equality of religions was very useful in a culturally diverse and plural society like India in welding people to nationhood. Thus Gandhian ideas have great philosophical relevance for modern Hinduism.
Another aspect of political Hinduism is politics of the right-wing which has existed since British times. Technically, religious leaders do not play politics! Politics is played by political parties - these political parties have their own left to the right spectrum of politics. These political leaders can at best claim that they have the blessings of the Gurus and Saints. Frankly, there is no “political Hinduism". There is nothing like the Christian Right or the Christian Left. At the doctrinal level, this movement derives its roots from the writings of the revolutionary V. D. Savarkar (1883 - 1966). The movement sees India as a Hindu nation and aims to take it to glorious heights. In current times, it has developed into the Hindutva movement. This strand on different occasions has taken violent positions vis-à-vis other religions on issues like temple construction, killing of cows, and religious conversions. It is a form of cultural nationalism and considers that Hinduism should be assigned its prime position in its own land.
Two other aspects of modern Hinduism relate to social violence. These relate to the position of women in society and the ills of the caste system. Reformative Hinduism has led to considerable improvement in the position of women, and awareness and legal provisions have accomplished the eradication of the ills of the caste system, even though at social levels this only represents an unattainable utopia.
The general tenor of modern Hinduism remains that of nonviolence combined with a pluralistic outlook and is influenced by liberal traditions of Vedanta and Upanishads. Outside India, the manifestation of Hinduism is generally not concerned with issues of war and violence, but is more concerned with Bhakti (devotion) and its philosophical dimensions.
[Another related essay: Hinduism in Modern Times]