Who Owns Hinduism?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Deepak Sarma Professor of South Asian Religions and Philosophy, Case Western Reserve University

Another good question to ask concerns the propriety of appropriating or merely utilizing purportedly proprietary Hindu symbols, practices, clothing, images and so on.


The question -- basically, "Who owns Hinduism?" -- revolves around a number of separate, but related questions: First, who speaks on behalf of, or represents the sentiment of, (all?) Hindus? Second, which items and practices are decidedly "Hindu"? And who determines this? Third, among these Hindu items/artifacts, which are untouchable and can only be appropriated or applied with appropriate approval? And who determines this?

The combination of Hinduism's colonial and post-colonial, and now diasporic reification, seeking to homogenize diversity, has propelled both unprepared, reluctant and, in the many suspect cases, self-proclaimed, leaders to the forefront. And it is these who claim or who are burdened with authority who (arbitrarily) decide or proclaim which practices, patterns and so on are "Hindu" and which, among these, are off-limits for use by non-Hindus, or ought to be used in approved ways.


So when a self-proclaimed Hindu statesman proclaims authority, her/his authority is somewhat suspicious.

Deepak Sarma: Who Owns Hinduism?

 

[Iyer@Infosys]

Deepak Sarma Professor of South Asian Religions and Philosophy, Case Western Reserve University

Another good question to ask concerns the propriety of appropriating or merely utilizing purportedly proprietary Hindu symbols, practices, clothing, images and so on.


The question -- basically, "Who owns Hinduism?" -- revolves around a number of separate, but related questions: First, who speaks on behalf of, or represents the sentiment of, (all?) Hindus? Second, which items and practices are decidedly "Hindu"? And who determines this? Third, among these Hindu items/artifacts, which are untouchable and can only be appropriated or applied with appropriate approval? And who determines this?

The combination of Hinduism's colonial and post-colonial, and now diasporic reification, seeking to homogenize diversity, has propelled both unprepared, reluctant and, in the many suspect cases, self-proclaimed, leaders to the forefront. And it is these who claim or who are burdened with authority who (arbitrarily) decide or proclaim which practices, patterns and so on are "Hindu" and which, among these, are off-limits for use by non-Hindus, or ought to be used in approved ways.


So when a self-proclaimed Hindu statesman proclaims authority, her/his authority is somewhat suspicious.

Deepak Sarma: Who Owns Hinduism?

Dear Prasad,

The obvious response to the query "Who owns Hinduism?" would be "A Hindu".

But this further raises a sequential (or consequential query) "Who is a Hindu?".

Furthermore "Hinduism" is an English lexicon, a term coined by the Brits, to refer to a heterogeneous assortment of faith/belief systems, popularly referred to as Religion, existing in the erstwhile Hindustan.

Religion is not a property of any individual or group and hence as such no one can claim proprietorship of any Religion or religious symbol. However one can embrace a Religion of his choice and is at liberty to convert to another, regardless of origin or domicility.

Regards,
Iyer@Infosys

 

[renuka]

No matter what what we need to remember that we come with nothing and we go with nothing.
We were never owners of anything to start with.

So technically no one owns any religion.

We have no idea what we would have been in our previous birth...in terms of religion etc.

Our Atma had worn the garment of various religions before in our previous life and would be wearing even more garments in the lives to come.


Sometimes in Hinduism we find contradictions and lack of understanding.

For example some Varnas in the past were not allowed to recite the Gayatri Mantra....this only goes to show the lack of understanding of the people who imposed this rule cos we can only stop someone from reciting it but the Ultimate Mantra Shabda Brahman AUM pervades the whole Cosmos and this falls into everyone's range of perception..so can anyone stop that??

 

[Jaykay767]

Who is Deepak Sarma to pass judgement on our religion ?. Just because he is a professor in some foreign university does not make him an authority ??

KRS: I hope this post is inline with your expectations.. I mean we can ask tough questions right ?, even if some people are not going to be happy & report them as offensive !!

 

[renuka]

Who is Deepak Sarma to pass judgement on our religion ?. Just because he is a professor in some foreign university does not make him an authority ??

KRS: I hope this post is inline with your expectations.. I mean we can ask tough questions right ?, even if some people are not going to be happy & report them as offensive !!

Dear JK,


Deepak Sarma has every right to voice his opinion on anything he wishes..after the whole day long Tom,Dick and Harry like all of us here too keep voicing our opinions...so why not Deepak Sharma.

Just say tomorrow some White guy starts praising Hinduism..everyone will be quoting him left right centre and use that as the gospel truth but when an Indian like us says anything we find fault with him right away.

So give Deepak a chance..sometimes only Indians can give us the bitter truth to swallow and it takes effect..just like how swearing in our mother tongue is more power packed and hits the target than swearing in English!LOL

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka,

Yes, everybody can voice their opinion & write about it.Here Deepak is passing judgement on an entire religious group of people / followersof 1+ Bllion & in a very broad manner. Not sure if you read his article infull. Hence we have every right to question it as well. I hope you will agree with this.

I would have supported his views or anyone else if the objectivewas a positive agenda of working through the fanatical followers who in theirzeal create a lot of negative image to our religion.

Just because of radical jihadists, can we blame the entire religion?It is not fair & correct.

Cheers,

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka,

Yes, everybody can voice their opinion & write about it.Here Deepak is passing judgement on an entire religious group of people / followersof 1+ Bllion & in a very broad manner. Not sure if you read his article infull. Hence we have every right to question it as well. I hope you will agree with this.

I would have supported his views or anyone else if the objectivewas a positive agenda of working through the fanatical followers who in theirzeal create a lot of negative image to our religion.

Just because of radical jihadists, can we blame the entire religion?It is not fair & correct.

Cheers,

Dear JK,


I like what Deepak Sarma wrote and now I checked out his pic and he looks good too...so no matter what you say Jaykay..Deepak Sarma is getting my vote!LOL






Dr. Deepak Sarma, professor at Case Western Reserve University in South Asian religions and philosophies
Dr. Deepak Sarma, professor of South Asian religions and philosophy at Case Western Reserve University, is the author of “Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader,” “Hinduism: A Reader,” “Epistemologies and the Limitations of Philosophical Inquiry: Doctrine in Madhva Vedanta” and “An Introduction to Madhva Vedanta.” He was a guest curator of Indian Kalighat Paintings, an exhibition at the Cleveland Museum of Art. After earning a BA in religion from Reed College, Sarma attended the University of Chicago Divinity School, where he received a PhD in the philosophy of religions. His current reflections concern cultural theory, racism, and post-colonialism.

http://trinitycleveland.org/blog/2013/events/interfaith-series-hinduism-buddhism-and-judaism/

 

[Jaykay767]

Lol !!.

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka,

See the problem with a lot of Indians is that they have amassive inferiority complex. So when they go abroad, they immediately discardall their traditions even before any one comments on it.

They will not follow any tradition, will not go to any temples, immediately start trashing their own people before theWhites say anything. Even with in the confines of their homes, they will notfollow any religious practices. I have been to IA homes of US where there is noteven a Idol or picture of our Gods !!.

Then they start trashing their own religion etc.. so theywant to be more white than the whites themselves !!.

See, people who have no pride in their lineage, tradition,religion are lost forever !!

Cheers,

 

[sangom]

In most Kerala temples there is a notice that entry into the temple is restricted to those who follow (practise?) hinduism. Hence, it can be said that hinduism is owned by all those who follow or practise hinduism.

This applies to most other religions also; islam is owned by all those who follow or practise islam, christianity by all those who follow or practise that religion, and so on.

This Deepak Sharma seems to have some score to settle with someone else whom he describes as "self-proclaimed, leaders". Best thing is to leave it at that and go like the proverbial caravan!!

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka,

See the problem with a lot of Indians is that they have amassive inferiority complex. So when they go abroad, they immediately discardall their traditions even before any one comments on it.

They will not follow any tradition, will not go to any temples, immediately start trashing their own people before theWhites say anything. Even with in the confines of their homes, they will notfollow any religious practices. I have been to IA homes of US where there is noteven a Idol or picture of our Gods !!.

Then they start trashing their own religion etc.. so theywant to be more white than the whites themselves !!.

See, people who have no pride in their lineage, tradition,religion are lost forever !!

Cheers,

Dear Jaykay,

I dont know about such people...but you see what ever differences in opinions I have about Hinduism I usually only trash it out with fellow Hindus.

I never discuss about the "minus" points of Hinduism with Non Hindus...but sad to say that not all Hindus think like this.

You would be surprised when I tell you this story.

Once I was working in a clinic which was in a factory where I was the visiting doctor to treat in house patients.

The nurse in the factory was a local non Hindu lady and I was surprised one day when she told me that her neighbour who is a TB..has a daughter who married an untouchable Indian..(the nurse used the word starting with the letter P to denote untouchable).

Then the Non Hindu nurse started asking me my caste and I did not answer her cos I felt it is not right to discuss all these with a Non Hindu.

I was downright surprised that her TB neighbour had almost taught this Non Hindu lady all about the Caste System.


Even once a Non Hindu patient invited me to her home for her sisters wedding and she told me she will prepare food without beef eg chicken for Hindus.

I told her that I am a vegetarian and immediately she said "Oh that means you must be high caste Hindu cos my superior is a TB from Chennai and he said only high caste Hindus are vegetarian"

I told her that is not true...anyone can be a vegetarian and I have no idea how your superior is classifying Hindus.


So Jaykay...there are many types of people some are Proud and some are Prejudiced.

It all depends what they are proud and prejudiced about.

 

[Vijayalakshmi]

By saying 'Our Religion' Jaykay767 has told that he owns Hinduism with others who join with him as 'our'!

 

[prasad1]

In most Kerala temples there is a notice that entry into the temple is restricted to those who follow (practise?) hinduism. Hence, it can be said that hinduism is owned by all those who follow or practise hinduism.

This applies to most other religions also; islam is owned by all those who follow or practise islam, christianity by all those who follow or practise that religion, and so on.

This Deepak Sharma seems to have some score to settle with someone else whom he describes as "self-proclaimed, leaders". Best thing is to leave it at that and go like the proverbial caravan!!

Mr. Sangom sir,
Can you say negative things about Rama, and you have said it in the past. So a Rama Bhakta can say that you do not follow Rama so you have no right.

I do not follow Islam, can I voice against Islamic fundamentalists?

You have voiced against Satya Sai, you are not a Sai follower so you have no right to voice your opinion. See censoring is double edged sword, it cuts both ways.

So basically we do not owen anything, so how do you protect it?

"kya lekar janam liya hai,kya lekar jaoge,
mutti bhandhkar janam liya hai,haath pasare jaoge".

So if a non-hindu wears a sari, dhoti, or any other Indian Garments, is it wrong? Would you say that it is Hindu symbol and only Hindu's can use it.

I should be able to walk into any public establishment. Similarly I can prevent others from using my private property.
There was a time when Kerala Temple used to discriminate against non-brahmins too, so a practice is not necessarily right.

If an Indian person walks into a Kerala Temple will you stop him, and challenge him, and can he prove he is Hindu?
And on the same grounds, a white westerner walks into a Temple is he humiliated and thrown out? He might have converted to Hinduism, he might belong to Hare Krishna group. In India we never think of consequences and persecute people just because they do not fit a mold.

In India A Muslim taliban wants to enter a Kerala Temple and give Rs 1000.00 to the administrator do you think he will be denied admission?

Let us not jump to flippent comments. A person does not own Hinduism, so there is no central authority on ownership of Hinduism.

 

[Delhi6]

From my vantage point any religion is born the day we are born and dies the day we die. Its our self identification along this journey which gives a sense of belonging. This self identification could be with the religion of parents or to the religion one converts to.
I suspect this sense of belonging extends to claiming the ownership of a religion when somebody either slights our religion and tries to put us on the defensive or when somebody from our own religion usurps this to harangue the fellow coreligionists of their renegade ways. Haven't we all run into the latter kinds. :biggrin1:

 

[prasad1]

In this site there are some people who's family and friend's have been utter failures. They have inferiority complex and think all Indian have this complex. That is absolutely incorrect. Majority of Indian expats are very successful, proud of our heritage. Indian expats build Hindu, Sikh, Jains follow their religion and culture even after 100 of years.

The expats are in ways more true to the cultures of the homeland than the Indians. When a Indian visitor comes and bad mouths India, or Hinduism, we generally do not want any part of it.

 

[Delhi6]

My reply would be nested in your post.

Hi Renuka,

See the problem with a lot of Indians is that they have a massive inferiority complex.

Not true of people of my generation (and am 34) and definitely not true of people below 25. They give back as good as they get.

So when they go abroad, they immediately discard all their traditions even before any one comments on it.

Again a broad brush. Many I know do not, rather they hold on tightly to it.

They will not follow any tradition, will not go to any temples, immediately start trashing their own people before the Whites say anything.

Again painting with a broad brush. Folks these days DO NOT take it lying down. I know of few cases where my friends eat rice with hands in office cafetaria and snubbed the holier than though firangs by saying that I am sure my hands are hygienic but am not so sure about the cutlery in cafetaria.

Even with in the confines of their homes, they will not follow any religious practices. I have been to IA homes of US where there is not even a Idol or picture of our Gods !!.

Cant say. Never been to IA homes.

Then they start trashing their own religion etc.. so they want to be more white than the whites themselves !!.

Maybe true of a previous generation I do not know many coconuts in my generation or younger to me

See, people who have no pride in their lineage, tradition,religion are lost forever !!

You assume too much Sir Jee.

Cheers,

Cheers to you as well ji.

 

[Acharya]

Dear Prasad1,

With reference to your post #11, rightly said thou that religion is no property of an individual or group.

There have been numerous instances of so-called-non-hindus being denied entry into hindu temples viz Zail Singh, Yesudass and some others into guruvayur temple, iskconites of foreign origin into puri jagannath temple. Yet hindus say hinduism is a universal religion, that anyone who believes God is accepted as hindu. However whosoever's religous identity cannot be determined superficially, whoever is not a celebrity and hence his/her religion is indeterminable enters hindu temples unhindered.

Regards,
Acharya

 

[Delhi6]

In this site there are some people who's family and friend's have been utter failures. They have inferiority complex and think all Indian have this complex. That is absolutely incorrect. Majority of Indian expats are very successful, proud of our heritage. Indian expats build Hindu, Sikh, Jains follow their religion and culture even after 100 of years.

The expats are in ways more true to the cultures of the homeland than the Indians. When a Indian visitor comes and bad mouths India, or Hinduism, we generally do not want any part of it.

I do not know about the bolded part but if I limit myself to my friends as a sample size, then yes your observations about expats are spot on.

 

[Acharya]

So if a non-hindu wears a sari, dhoti, or any other Indian Garments, is it wrong? Would you say that it is Hindu symbol and only Hindu's can use it.

In hindu-temples, a person wearing lungi is forbidden entry since lungi is (mis)construed to be a muslim's costume.

In so-called-hindu houses, a fuel-lighter, widely used for lighting cigarrettes, must not be used for lighting kuthuvillakku.

 

[sangom]

Mr. Sangom sir,
Can you say negative things about Rama, and you have said it in the past. So a Rama Bhakta can say that you do not follow Rama so you have no right.

I do not follow Islam, can I voice against Islamic fundamentalists?

You have voiced against Satya Sai, you are not a Sai follower so you have no right to voice your opinion. See censoring is double edged sword, it cuts both ways.

Shri Prasad,

You are right that I am not following hindu religion as per your perspectives. Even then can I not give my opinion about who own religion? Pl. consider. (You need not be a farmer but you can still say which of the apples in a basket is good and not spoiled, this is just like that.

So basically we do not owen anything, so how do you protect it?

"kya lekar janam liya hai,kya lekar jaoge,
mutti bhandhkar janam liya hai,haath pasare jaoge".

So if a non-hindu wears a sari, dhoti, or any other Indian Garments, is it wrong? Would you say that it is Hindu symbol and only Hindu's can use it.

If we do not come here with something and go away empty-handed, does it mean that we cannot own anything here? Kindly explain.

Here the topic is about owning and I think we do not mean things like imitating. So long as the sari, dhoti etc., are Indian garments, hindus do not have exclusive right or patent rights on those things. Ownership here will mean the ownership of a particular piece of sari, dhoti, etc. If tomorrow some fashion designer comes up with a sari which has a god's image at a strategic point (like the underwears some time back) hindus will protest because they will think they are protecting hinduism in this way.

I should be able to walk into any public establishment. Similarly I can prevent others from using my private property. There was a time when Kerala Temple used to discriminate against non-brahmins too, so a practice is not necessarily right.

Your arguments are losing their sheen. If a practice is not necessarily right, the practise of allowing non-brahmins also may not necessarily be right, you see!!

If an Indian person walks into a Kerala Temple will you stop him, and challenge him, and can he prove he is Hindu?
And on the same grounds, a white westerner walks into a Temple is he humiliated and thrown out? He might have converted to Hinduism, he might belong to Hare Krishna group. In India we never think of consequences and persecute people just because they do not fit a mold.

In India A Muslim taliban wants to enter a Kerala Temple and give Rs 1000.00 to the administrator do you think he will be denied admission?

Let us not jump to flippent comments. A person does not own Hinduism, so there is no central authority on ownership of Hinduism.

If the temple staff (not I) stop someone from entering the temple on suspicion that he/she may not be a hindu, the concerned person will have to produce necessary certificates/other documentary evidence to prove his contention. Such an incident happened a few months ago in the local Padmanabhaswamy temple and the person concerned (a high-profile foreign lady suspected to be involved with antiques) had to produce the Arya Samaj certificate to show that she had converted to hinduism.

I agree that there is no "single centralized point" of ownership in Hinduism but I think the same applies to Xianity as well; the Pope cannot sell off any church property in Kerala at his will and pleasure.

 

[prasad1]

That is precisely my point. You can make comment on anything, but even you can not claim exclusivity. It is common property. When we take a common property and claim exclusive rights, that usually is illegal.

 

[palindrome]

I agree with Renu and Prasad.

Deepak Sharma gets my vote too. He is spot on when he says "The combination of Hinduism's colonial and post-colonial, and now diasporic reification, seeking to homogenize diversity, has propelled both unprepared, reluctant and, in the many suspect cases, self-proclaimed, leaders to the forefront".

The self-proclaimed leaders are often hindutva ones seeking to homogenize native cultures. Their activities (nefarious imo) in colonial period (usurping Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, even Bohra Muslims under the term "Hinduism"), bringing everyone under 'hindu personal laws', attempting to take control over their religious institutions, may be forgotten by the masses today (especially when there is a fervor to be "proud" of "hinduism"), but is well remembered (thankfully) in academic circles studying colonial period indian history.

Instead of "homogenize" more appropriately the word should be "impose" because that is what the british-brahmin combine did in colonial period (ie., impose dharmashastra varna terms and laws on all and sundry). Must be a stroke of luck and fate, which somehow, got us all removed from those archaic laws. Otherwise, as a woman, i would have hated to live in a non-secular society governed by dumb dharmashastra laws.

I sincerely urge everyone to read these two books to understand colonial period history (Will also help understand what ''hindutva' is all about. If hindutva lobby wants social relevance today, there is a lot they need to change -- but if they did, they wud become secular, which they do not want to become, bcoz they still want relevance for varna terms and varna vyavastha (varna system)):
1) Religion and personal law in secular India: a call to judgment - Google Books
2) Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law: Current problems and the legacy of ... - John Duncan Martin Derrett - Google Books

As for the title "Who Owns Hinduism", i think it makes no sense, because there is no such thing as 'hinduism'. The term 'hindu' simply indicates people of diverse religions occupying the subcontinent. The most popular religion in India, Malaysia, Singapore, and in erstwhile Cambodia, Indonesia is Agamism (the religion of Idol worship).

 

[கால பைரவன்]

If the temple staff (not I) stop someone from entering the temple on suspicion that he/she may not be a hindu, the concerned person will have to produce necessary certificates/other documentary evidence to prove his contention. Such an incident happened a few months ago in the local Padmanabhaswamy temple and the person concerned (a high-profile foreign lady suspected to be involved with antiques) had to produce the Arya Samaj certificate to show that she had converted to hinduism.

Most often than not, criticism of this practice of not allowing non-hindus to enter hindu temples is out of place.

As Sangom has said, it is rather quite easy to obtain a hindu certificate. One just have to have the intent. (I think the fee charged is minimal but even this can be dispensed away with as a matter of principle). There is no need to attend masses or religious congregations (to become a hindu) as is the case with other religions.

IMO, organizations such as Arya samaj can provide this facilty at all temples where such restrictions are imposed to make it easier for the devotees.

 

[sangom]

I agree with Renu and Prasad.

Deepak Sharma gets my vote too. He is spot on when he says "The combination of Hinduism's colonial and post-colonial, and now diasporic reification, seeking to homogenize diversity, has propelled both unprepared, reluctant and, in the many suspect cases, self-proclaimed, leaders to the forefront".

The self-proclaimed leaders are often hindutva ones seeking to homogenize native cultures. Their activities (nefarious imo) in colonial period (usurping Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, even Bohra Muslims under the term "Hinduism"), bringing everyone under 'hindu personal laws', attempting to take control over their religious institutions, may be forgotten by the masses today (especially when there is a fervor to be "proud" of "hinduism"), but is well remembered (thankfully) in academic circles studying colonial period indian history.

Instead of "homogenize" more appropriately the word should be "impose" because that is what the british-brahmin combine did in colonial period (ie., impose dharmashastra varna terms and laws on all and sundry). Must be a stroke of luck and fate, which somehow, got us all removed from those archaic laws. Otherwise, as a woman, i would have hated to live in a non-secular society governed by dumb dharmashastra laws.

I sincerely urge everyone to read these two books to understand colonial period history (Will also help understand what ''hindutva' is all about. If hindutva lobby wants social relevance today, there is a lot they need to change -- but if they did, they wud become secular, which they do not want to become, bcoz they still want relevance for varna terms and varna vyavastha (varna system)):
1) Religion and personal law in secular India: a call to judgment - Google Books
2) Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law: Current problems and the legacy of ... - John Duncan Martin Derrett - Google Books

As for the title "Who Owns Hinduism", i think it makes no sense, because there is no such thing as 'hinduism'. The term 'hindu' simply indicates people of diverse religions occupying the subcontinent. The most popular religion in India, Malaysia, Singapore, and in erstwhile Cambodia, Indonesia is Agamism (the religion of Idol worship).

Palindrome,

I understand Shri Deepak Sharma's words as directed against one or more self-proclaimed individual leaders whereas, you start citing his words and end up with "British-brahmin combine" and in this way you are trying to insinuate the brahmins alone for whatever sin that Shri Sharma has in his view.

I say that whoever practices hinduism partly or wholly or whatever, all such people commonly own the Hindu religion.

If the problem here is about hindus in India vs hindus who have emigrated, both sectors have a say about hinduism imo as long as they subscribe to the tenets of hinduism. I don't think the "hindutva" ideology or political party etc., has to be dragged in into this discussion. But when the chips are down and hindus, in general, feel that their very interests are threatened then only such political formations will be of some use in today's democratic set-up of India. Hindus in today's context will mean the vast majority of SCs and STs who still stick to their age-old traditions which hinduism accepts as part of it. Emigres may be very powerful outside and also in terms of money power but, numbers-wise it is the lowest castes who will matter.

That is why today, in Kerala, the Nair Service Society and the SNDP of the eezhavas/thiyyas (the largest hindu community owing allegiance to the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru) have joined hands - forgetting all the past caste equations - to oppose the congress government in the state.

 

[sangom]

I find that Shri Deepak Sharma's comments were in the context of one Selena Gomez, actor, singer, fashion designer, etc., using or marketing "bindis". Who criticised/opposed this and for what reason/s is not known. If this lady is just marketing her own brand of "bindis", I think there would normally have been no opposition to it from any hindu or any self-proclaimed hindu leader.

Can we get fuller info on this?