Hinduism is a religion, and all Indians are not Hindus

In one of his recent speeches RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat asked "why all inhabitants of Hindustan (another name for India or Bharat) are not known as Hindus?" This question is not asked for the first time, especially by anyone associated with RSS or other organizations directly or indirectly associated with it. The logic he puts to support his argument is, if residents of America are called Americans, residents of Germany are called Germans, France-French so why not Hindustan's residents are called Hindus? So, what is wrong with this question? Why all Indians cannot be called Hindus? After all,  they all share some common cultural heritage. Indian Muslims are culturally different than Arab Muslims, and so are Christians and Jews. Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism originated in India. So, why can't we call all of them Hindus? The main and flawed assumption for all these assumptions is that Hinduism is not a religion but a lifestyle. Amazingly many even today claim that Hinduism is not a religion but is a way of life. To substantiate this claim they even cite the judgement of Justice Verma's bench in which the bench tried to define the meanings of the terms Hinduism or Hindutwa (delivered in 1995). For some reason this judgement is known as the Hindutwa judgement and Supreme Court panel is going to review it again. Superficially nothing appears to be wrong or mal-intentioned in this statement, but we need to dig a little deeper to understand the real intention behind this argument.

The problem is not with the question itself but the intention behind it. Today Hinduism is considered as third largest (after Christianity and Islam) and oldest practiced religion in the world. Its followers are spread all over the world, majority of them live in India. The term "Hindu" refers to a particular group of people who follow a particular faith, Hinduism, is like any other religion with rituals and gods. A Hindu can be from anywhere in the world, there are American, German, French, or even Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindus. As far as the argument of 'Hinduism not a religion but lifestyle is concerned', aren't all religions fit into this definition? In fact which religion is not a lifestyle? Just look at the people who practice any religion, it dominates their lifestyle. It controls the way they think, behave, and treat their family and other people, most religions including Hinduism have rules about what food to eat, what clothes to wear, etc. So, every religion can be considered as lifestyle, rather it can be said that they were designed to be a lifestyle and that is why they are so popular. This argument of lifestyle and not religion is conveniently used whenever it suits to broaden the base of Hinduism by RSS. When they want to label an entire country using a single term (Hindu) then it's not a religion but it is a cultural term or a lifestyle. However, when a cow is slaughtered or a temple is demolished then only the religious sentiments of Hindus get hurt. Now there must be a difference between these two Hindus, right? If not, then why communal riots are termed as Hindu-Muslim riots, why not Hindu-Hindu riots? So it is very easy to understand the game of words here. The truth is that Hinduism is a religion and Hindus are people who follow Hinduism. Hindu is not synonymous with terms like "Hindustani," "Hindavi," "Bharatiya," or "Indian." These other terms indicate the regional or cultural identity of a person but the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" are religious. It would be inappropriate for anyone to try to force this label on citizens of a secular country like India. No matter how inclusive or tolerant Hindus claim to be people may not like to be associated with this label. Like every other religion Hinduism also has many dark chapters in its long history. Once it was a dominant religion or faith in Southeast Asia but this is not the case anymore. Today there are many religions and cultures that exist side by side in this region, one just cannot label all of them as "Hindu cultures." It is not only wrong but also insulting to all other cultures to merge their identities with Hindus because they have separate identities.

If the intention of Mr. Bhagwat was to propose some term that can unify or define all citizens of India then what is wrong with terms like "Bharatiya" or "Indian" or "Hindustani"? Why didn't he use any of these terms which may not have created any confusion among people from other faiths and in the minds of his detractors. This is why his intention behind this statement is questioned. I am sure he was well aware of what he was saying and what impact it would have. I am sure he also knew that being BJP in power his statement would be interpreted differently. I hope that Mr. Bhagwat and RSS now accept the reality that the term Hindu represents a single religion and it can not be used to label the cultural heritage of a diverse country like India. We have many other terms that could be used to represent the cultural heritage of India, let's use them if required. I hope the leaders of India won't try to create unnecessary controversy and communal tension in a country that is already struggling to deal with this problem.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]