ISN'T HINDUISM SAME AS 'INDIANISM'

My quest is to know what the heck is 'HINDUISM'? Is it really a RELIGION? To all its detracters and also its followers, it would be an interesting exercise to know that the word 'HINDU' was not to be found in any of the ancient literature of this so called religion. The origional text of 'VEDAS', 'EPICS'( RAMAYANA & MAHABHARTA), Holy Book 'GEETA', 'UPNISHADS', 'PURANAS or even 'BRAHMANAS' do not have a mention of the word 'HINDU' even once. According to famous INDOLOGIST and a renowned historian, Mr JOHN KEAY, first time this word appeared in the written form was in 518 BC.(Refer to pp 10 of HISTORY OF INDIA by JOHN KEAY.) It was on a tablet by King DARIUS-1 of ancient PERSIA ( IRAN). According to the tablet, the DIKTAT on it had said that King DARIUS-1 ruled upto and beyond RIVER 'HINDU' (SINDHU/INDUS). John Keay goes on to explain that the word 'HINDU' was, in fact, a corruption of the SANSKRIT word, "SINDHU" . It is believed that the ancient PERSIANS pronounced 'S' with apostraphe 'H'. Thus River "SINDHU" became River "HINDU".

This has been also authenticated by the renowned Indian ARCHAEOLOGIST, Sh. Rajesh Kochhar, in his book," A VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA". In the book , a number of such examples have been given---such as 'ASURA' in SANSKRIT as 'AHURA' in ancient Persian ( Avaistic Zenda) or DASYU in Sanskrit as 'DAHYU'. Actually Rajesh Kochhar goes on to say that Ancient PERSIANS belonged to the same branch of the ARYANS who came to India.( By the way, PLEASE NOTE ARYANS WAS NOT A RACE AS IT IS THOUGHT TO BE; IT WAS SIMPLY A LINGUAL FRATERNITY!) More on this, some time later in the future.

Therefore, the ancient PERSIANS called, anyone living EAST of the RIVER "HINDU" (SINDHU,) as a 'HINDU'. Please note, it was a GEOGRAPHICAL CONNOTATION and it had a FOREIGN ORIGION. According to JOHN KEAY in his another book, 'INTO INDIA' the word HINDU was used for describing the "Geographical & Cultural Identity" of a person as and at par with 'INDIAN' today or as a 'BRITON' or an 'AMERICAN' would mean to us now-a-days. People in the olden days, followed a number of TEMPORAL SECTS with separate identities such as 'SHAIVISM', 'VAISHNAVISM', 'BUDDHISM' Or 'JAINISM'. They were all called HINDUS as late as till 18th CENTURY.

Further, it may be noted, when the ancient PERSIANS interacted with the GREEKS, the word 'HINDU' lost its 'H' and became "INDIE", "INDIC" Or "INDIA". 'Alexander the Great'( SIKANDER-E-AZAM) called it the land of INDIA. From the GREKS the word travelled further WEST and they named this land as INDIA. But the PERSIANS and the ARABS kept on calling it 'HINDUSTAN'( LAND OF HINDUS). It was never a religious identity. It was purely a GEOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE. People followed VAISHNAV (VEDIC) and SHAIVITE (NAGA) practices. The VEDIC people called this land as "ARYAVRAT" and SHAIVITES called it as,"BHARATVARSH". ( SHAIVITES WERE THE FOLLOWERS OF LORD SHIVA and belonged to a race called NAGA--who were scattered from AFGHANISTAN in the WEST to ASSAM in the EAST to MAHARASHTRA in the South--their philosophy was LIVE TODAYi.e. EAT(also meat) , DRINK and BE MERRY--as opposed to VAISHNAVS, who were not only 'pure Vegetarians' but also WORRIED OF THE FUTURE.)

Later came the BUDDHISTS AND JAINS who were in reality an off-shoot PRODUCT of the SYNTHESIS OF VAISHNAVISM and SHAIVISM. Synthesis only led to new TEMPORAL PROCEDURES WITOUT CHANGING THE GEOGRAPHICAL or THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND. So, the FOREIGNERS, particularly the ARABS & PERSIANS, continued to referrto them as "HINDUS" only. Slightly digressing here to press home the point. Please note Dr SIR IQBAL MOHAMMED's famoous poem "HINDUSTAN HAMARA'. He was a man of history and he knew his origion. This is why he exhorts our people, "--------MAZHAB NAHIN SIKHATA AAPAS MEIN BAIR RAKHNA, 'HINDI' HAI HUM WATAN HAI HINDUSTAN HAMARA----" ( THE RELIGION DOES NOT TEACH US TO HAVE ANIMOSITY TOWARDS EACH OTHER; WE ARE 'HINDI' AND OUR NATION IS 'HINDUSTAN'). I would like to draw your attention to the word "HINDI" meaning "WE ARE ALL HINDUS!". Unfortunately, religious BIGOTS got the better of him, as they do even today of the most sensible people in various religions in India.

How did the word "HINDU" acquire religious connotation? After the word came into existence around SIXTH CENTURY BC as a GEOGRAPHICAL & CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING EAST OF THE RIVER "SINDHU"( HINDU Or INDUS), it continued to carry same meaning for another 1000 years. Around 530 AD, a HUN Prince, GOPALDITYA, was corronated as king of KASHMIR. He was son of 'MIHIRKULA'---a tyrant HUN king of Kashmir. Gopalditya was a very learned man and a good administrator. One day while going around his capital with his minister, he saw people following weird TEMPORAL practices. Some were worshipping IDOLS. Some were advocating eating of meat and drinking of intoxicants, while some others totally preached against it. He noticed, despite all these differences and opposing views, people lived in harmony and peace. He was impressed with such neighbourly CO-EXISTENCE. He asked his minister on the weird ways of the people. Minister said," THEY ARE 'HINDUS' and they do not follow one temporal practice. THEY TOLERATE OPPOSITE VIEWS AND DISSIDENCE. It is THEIR WAY OF LIVING." "Oh, great! THEN I WILL ALSO BECOME A HINDU.", He had said. This is how then the word 'HINDU' began to acquire RELIGIOUS meaning. It must be said that it was then a CONFLUENCE of various TEMPORAL practices---particularly 'SHAIVISM' and 'VAISNAVISM'---widely and diametrically opposite thoughts. All the same the word continued to carry its old PERSIAN identity of 'CULTURAL NATIONHOOD' --right upto the 18th Century.
Therfore, it must not be seen as a religion--because there are no uniform temporal practices amongst HINDUS, from region to region; caste to caste; class to class; sects to sects; language to language. Its APPARENT DISSIMLIARITIES MAKE IT A GREAT TREATISE ON LIVING A LIFE IN A COLOURFUL MANNER. IT advocates UNITY IN DIVERSITY IN TRUE SENSE. Unfortunately, inspit of all this, it continues to be the FAVOURITE WHIPPING BOY OF PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS AND HALF-READ educationists. But it MOVES ON. AND KEEP GROWING. ITS PROTECTION IS ITS "NO-DEFENCE" BY ITS FOLLOWERS. The rising trend to defend it, would make it WEAK and RIGID. It has survived thousands of years of onslaught and each time it has emerged STRONGER.

We must know that 'HINDUISM' as a TEMPORAL & SPIRITUAL philosophy,Known as today, was never FOUNDED BY ANY ONE SAINT/ MESSIAH or a PROPHET as almost all other known religions and sects have been. IT EVOLVED ITSELF. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ONE SECT OR SET OF SECTS. THE MULTIPLICITIES OF ITS GODS IS A TESTIMONY OF ITS EMPHASIS ON THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM. THIS VERY FACT MAKES IT FLEXIBLE AND SECULAR. IT CONTINUES TO GROW AND EVOLVE. HINDUISM IS A CULTURAL ENTITY; it is not a RELIGION. It encompasses in its fold a whole philosophy of living SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL, MATERIAL, SOCIAL, POLITACAL AND MILITARY LIFE. It is more than the word "RELIGION"--which simply means FOLLOWING RITUALS and TEMPORAL PROCEDURES. IT is, in fact, emancipation of the word "DHARMA"--which includes in itself parameters of Social, Political, Economic and spiritual conduct of a man. It defines social/familial/ national responsibilities and duties.
The word "HINDU", in fact, is THE LOST ELDER BROTHER of the CURRENT TERMINOLOGY of "INDIAN"--which substituted it. This is also given by the FOREIGNERS only-- more particularly by the GREEKS. From the GREEKS it travelled further WEST AND GOT POPULARISED amongst the EUROPEANS. AS WEST RULED INDIA for almost 200 yers, THE NAME 'INDIAN or INDIA' GOT STUCK AND 'HINDU' lost its shine. But amongst the ARABS and PERSIANS IT IS STILL KNOWN AS 'HINDUSTAN'--THE LAND OF HINDUS.

Please note I am only trying to clear out certain misconceptions about this MOST SECULAR and FLEXIBLE TREATISE ON HUMAN CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOUR WITH MALICE TOWARDS NONE. It not ONLY SHOWS THE WAY AS HOW TO LEAD A HUMAN LIFE BUT ALSO ACCEPTS NEW WAYS WITH PASSAGE OF TIME. We must understand:-

-It encourages CRITICISM and DISSIDENCE.

-It does not CLAIM ITS PHILOSOPHY AS 'ULTIMATE AND FINAL' .

-It doesnot ENCOURAGE HATRED FOR YOUR RIVALS and ENEMIES.

-Its much maligned CASTE-SYSTEM was a social division of work to achieve 'SPECIALISATION' in family work---IT IS SAME THING AS YOU SEE IN VARIOUS PROFESSIONS OF TODAY. An ENGINEER's SON GOES FOR ENGINEERING. A DOCTOR'S SON GOES FOR MEDICINES. A POLITICIAN's SON GOES FOR POLITICS.A 'FAUJI's SON GENERALLY. TILL DATE, WENT FOR 'DEFENCE SERVICES' CAREER. IN fact these are the MODERN CASTES OF INDIA. No upper caste boy( STARVING OF HUNGER) would mind marrying GRAND DAUGHTER OF BABU JAGJIVAN RAM. Where is the caste system? Only IN THE PAGES OF CONSTITUTION WHICH KEEPS IT ALIVE THROUGH THE BOGEY OF RESERVATION. HAD THE PROVISION OF RESERVATION NOT BEEN THERE, THE OLD CASTE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED LONG TIME BACK. BUT IT HAS BEEN KEPT ALIVE BY VOTE BANK POLITICIANS.

-SOCIAL DIVISIONS IN HINDUISM' were to promote & IMPROVE QUALITY OF WORK THROUGH HERIDATORY PROFESSION. It is a different matter that it fell victim to monoply of a class.

-Much CRITICISED IDOL WORSHIPPING is actually a sign of inability of others to be definitive about their GODS. IDOLS ARE REPRESENTATION OF GODS OF YOUR PREFERENCE. IT IS A SYMBOL WHICH GIVES YOU FREEDOM TO CHOOSE YOUR GOD. 'OTHERS' do not provide this freedom to their followers. They do not know the SHAPE of their GOD. It is law of nature that SHAPELESS THINGS DO NOT EXIST. IF A THING DOES NOT EXIST, WHY DO YOU WORSHIP?

- In any case, WHAT IS THERE IN THE MOSQUE AT MECCA? WHAT ARE THE STATUES OF VIRGIN MERY OR LORD JESUS or THE CROSS DOING IN CHURCHES? HOW ABOUT THE GODDESS OF LIBERTY & FREEDOM? WHAT IS IT DOING IN THE MOST ADVANCED NATION--NEW YORK--NEAR CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. IT IS A SYMBOL---A SYMBOL OF SUPEREMACY OF HUMAN SPIRIT---- ISN'T IT? Symbols are reminders of the faith to the faithful. Why are we criticizing HINDU symbols, if others also do it?
-The multiplicity of gods/godesses speaks volume on the DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM & LIBERTY OF SPIRITUAL THOUGHT in the HINDU CULTURAL and SOCIAL WAY OF LIFE. It does not bind you to the fallacy of ABSOLUTISM like others.