TheOxfordHistory ofHinduism
ModernHinduism
Editedby TORKELBREKKE
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©OxfordUniversityPress2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019933440
ISBN978–0–19–879083–9
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
NotesonContributors vii
IntroductiontotheSeries xi
Introduction:ModernityandHinduism1 TorkelBrekke
PART1.EARLYHINDUREFORMERS ANDREFORMMOVEMENTS
1.EarlyModernHinduism17 AdrianPlau
2.RammohunRoyandtheBengalRenaissance36 DermotKillingley
3.BankimchandraChattopadhyayandModernHinduism54 HansHarder
4.BhaktisiddhāntaSarasvatī andISKCON72 FerdinandoSardella
PART2.EXPRESSIONSANDLOCATIONS OFMODERNHINDUISM
5. Mūrti,Idol,Art,andCommodity:TheMultipleIdentities ofHinduImages93 TanishaRamachandran
6.IndianCinemaandModernHinduism110 GayatriChatterjee
7.HinduPilgrimageandModernTourism125 KnutAukland
8.HinduismandNewAge:PatrimonialOnenessand ReligiousCosmopolitanism141 KathinkaFrøystad
9.OnlineHinduism162 HeinzScheifinger
10.ModernHinduDiaspora(s)179
VineetaSinha
PART3.POLITICS,ETHICS,ANDLAW
11.TheHistoryofHinduNationalisminIndia203 ManjariKatju
12.CasteandContemporaryHinduSociety:Community,Politics, andWork216 DivyaVaidandAnkurDatta
13.HinduLawinModernTimes:HowHinduLawContinues inModernIndia244
WernerMenski
14.ModernHindu Dharma andEnvironmentalism261 PankajJain
15.HinduismintheSecularRepublicofNepal275
DavidN.GellnerandChiaraLetizia
NotesonContributors
KnutAukland isAssociateProfessorintheFacultyofEducationand InternationalStudiesatOsloMet OsloMetropolitanUniversity.Aukland haspublishedaseriesofarticlesexploringtourismandHindupilgrimage. Hehasalsoco-edited ‘Religion,PilgrimageandTourisminIndiaandChina’ inthe InternationalJournalofReligiousTourismandPilgrimage (withMichael Stausberg,2018).
TorkelBrekke isprofessorinthestudyofreligionattheUniversityofOslo. HecompletedaD.Phil.inOrientalStudiesattheUniversityofOxfordand specializedinSouthAsianreligioushistoryinthecolonialperiod.Hisresearch hasitsgeneralfocusonissuesofreligionandcultureandtheirrelationto politicsandeconomicswithabroadrangeoftopics,suchastheethicsofwar intheHindutradition,fundamentalismintheworldreligions,Christian politicsinScandinavia,andIslamic financeintheWest.Brekkealsoworks fortheliberalthinktankCivitabasedinOslo.
GayatriChatterjee, afreelancescholarbasedinPune,hastaughtFilmStudies attheSymbiosisSchoolfortheLiberalArtssince2011.Shewaspreviouslyat theFilmandTelevisionInstituteofIndia,Pune.Shehastaughtandlectured widelyintheUSA,andwasaFellowattheBirbeckUniversityofLondonin 2015.Herbook Awara (1992)wonthe Swarnakamal,thePresident’sgold medal,astheBestBookonCinema. MotherIndia (2002)wasfortheBritish FilmInstitute’ s filmclassicsseries.Herarticleshaveappearedinnationaland internationalvolumes.Shehasmadetwodocumentary filmstitled Homesfor GodsandMortals and LifeisWater.A filmbasedonherscript BitterChestnut isinthepost-productionstage.
AnkurDatta isAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofSociologyatSouth AsianUniversity.Hehasexploredquestionsofforcedmigration,violence,and victimhoodwithreferencetoJammuandKashmir.Hehaspublishedhiswork injournalssuchas ContributionstoIndianSociology and ModernAsian Studies.Heistheauthorof OnUncertainGround:DisplacedKashmiriPandits inJammuandKashmir (2017).
KathinkaFrøystad isProfessorofModernSouthAsianStudiesinthe DepartmentofCultureStudiesandOrientalLanguagesattheUniversityof Oslo.Specializingonreligiousdiversityandchange,Frøystadhasintereststhat spanfromeverydayHindunationalismandreligioustransformationstoritual intersectionsandthepoliticsofreligiousoffence.Herworksinclude Blended
Boundaries:Caste,ClassandShiftingFacesof ‘Hinduness’ inaNorthIndian City (2005).
DavidN.Gellner isProfessorofSocialAnthropologyattheUniversityof Oxford.Heistheeditororco-editoroffourteenvolumes,including Global Nepalis:Religion,Culture,andCommunityinaNewandOldDiaspora (with S.L.Hausner,2018)and Religion,SecularismandEthnicityinContemporary Nepal (withS.L.HausnerandChiaraLetizia,2016).Hisotherbooksinclude RebuildingBuddhism:TheTheravadaMovementinTwentieth-CenturyNepal (withS.LeVine,2005)and TheAnthropologyofBuddhismandHinduism: WeberianThemes,2001).Hehasbeenconductingresearchonreligion, politics,ethnicity,andsocialchangeinNepalsince1980.
HansHarder isProfessorofModernSouthAsianLanguagesandLiteratures attheSouthAsiaInstituteofHeidelbergUniversity.Heistheauthorof Sufism andSaintVenerationinContemporaryBangladesh:TheMaijbhandarisof Chittagong (2011)and LiteratureandNationalIdeology:WritingHistoriesof ModernIndianLanguages (2009).
PankajJain isAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofAnthropologyandthe DepartmentofPhilosophyandReligionattheUniversityofNorthTexas, whereheteachescoursesonreligions,cultures,ecologies,and filmsofIndia andAsia.Heistheauthorof DharmaandEcologyofHinduCommunities: SustenanceandSustainability (2011),whichwonthe2012DANAMBook Awardandthe2011UberoiBookAward.
ManjariKatju isProfessorattheDepartmentofPoliticalScience,University ofHyderabad,India.SheteachescoursesonIndianandComparativePolitics. Sheistheauthorof VishvaHinduParishadandIndianPolitics (2003)and HinduisingDemocracy:TheVishvaHinduParishadinContemporaryIndia (2017).Herpublicationsinclude ‘MassPoliticsandInstitutionalRestraint: PoliticalPartiesandtheElectionCommissionofIndia’ , StudiesinIndian Politics (2016)and ‘ElectionCommissionandChangingContoursofPolitics’ , EconomicandPoliticalWeekly (2009).
DermotKillingley wasReaderinHinduStudiesatNewcastleUniversityandis SeniorAssociateFellowattheOxfordCentreofHinduStudies.HehaspublishedresearchonaspectsofancientIndianthought,andonmoderndevelopments,particularlyRammohunRoy,Vivekananda,andRadhakrishnan.His booksinclude RammohunRoyinHinduandChristianTradition (1993).
ChiaraLetizia isProfessorofSouthAsianReligionsattheUniversityof Quebec,Montreal,andResearcherandLecturerinCulturalAnthropologyat theUniversityofMilan,Bicocca.SheisaresearchassociateintheSchoolof AnthropologyandMuseumEthnographyattheUniversityofOxfordandan
associatememberoftheCentreforHimalayanStudiesoftheCNRS.Her researchinterestsfocusontheanthropologyofSouthAsia,Buddhism,Hinduism,ritualandsymbolism,religionandpolitics,ethnicandreligiousactivism. Herpublicationsinclude Religion,SecularismandEthnicityinContemporary Nepal (co-editedwithDavidN.GellnerandSondraHausner,2016).
WernerMenski isEmeritusProfessorintheSchoolofLawattheSchoolof AfricanandAsianStudies,UniversityofLondon.Hispublicationsinclude HinduLaw:BeyondTraditionandModernity (2003)and ComparativeLawin aGlobalContext:TheLegalSystemsofAsiaandAfrica,2ndedn(2002).
AdrianPlau isleadingaWellcomeTrust-fundedresearchprojectonhealth, medicine,andtreatmentinearlymodernNorthIndia.Hedidhisdoctoral workonJainliteratureinBrajbhāsā atSOAS,UniversityofLondon.His publicationsincludeaforthcomingcriticaleditionandtranslationof RāmcandBālak’ s Sītācarit,aseventeenth-centuryversionofthe Rāmāya : na thatemphasizesSītā’sperspectiveandthathasneverbeforebeenprinted.
TanishaRamachandran isAssociateTeachingProfessorandDirectorof ReligionandPublicEngagementatWakeForestUniversity.Hercurrent researchexaminestheconnectionbetweenraceandreligionthroughnarrativesdepictingHindusasidolatersinnineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryIndia byexaminingwritingsbymissionaries,Orientalists,EastIndiaOfficialsand Phrenologists.
FerdinandoSardella isaresearcherandtheDirectorfortheForumforSouth AsiaStudiesfortheHumanitiesandSocialSciencesatUppsalaUniversity.He isafellowattheOxfordCentreforHinduStudies.In2010hereceivedthe DonnerInstitutePrizeforoutstandingresearchinthe fieldofReligious StudiesattheÅboAkademiUniversityinFinland.Heistheauthorof ModernHinduPersonalism:TheHistory,Life,andThoughtofBhaktisiddhāntaSarasvatī (2013).
HeinzScheifinger isAssistantProfessorofSociologyatZayedUniversity, UAE,andhaspreviouslybeenafacultymemberatuniversitiesinSouthKorea, SaudiArabia,andBruneiDarussalam.PriortothishewasaPostdoctoral FellowintheDepartmentofSociologyattheUniversityofAberdeen,Scotland, andattheAsiaResearchInstitute,NationalUniversityofSingapore.Hehas alsobeenaVisitingScholarattheSingaporeInternetResearchCentreat NanyangTechnologicalUniversityandVisitingAssistantProfessoratthe AsianUniversityforWomen,Bangladesh.Hisresearchhaslargelyfocused ontherelationshipbetweenHinduismanddigitalmedia.Recentpublications include ‘TheSignificanceofNon-ParticipatoryDigitalReligion:TheSaiva SiddhantaChurchandtheDevelopmentofaGlobalHinduism’,inMurali Balaji(ed.), DigitalHinduism DharmaandDiscourseintheAgeofNew
Media (2018),and ‘StudyingDigitalHinduism’,inSariyaCheruvallilContractorandSuhaShakkour(eds), DigitalMethodologiesintheSociology ofReligion (2016).
VineetaSinha isHeadofDepartmentattheDepartmentofSociologyaswell asattheSouthAsianStudiesProgrammeattheNationalUniversityof Singapore.Herresearchandteachinginterestsincludethefollowingareas: Hindureligiosityinthediaspora;religion–stateencounters;religion,commodification,andconsumptionpractices;historyandpracticeofsociology; critiqueofconceptsandcategoriesinthesocialsciences;rethinkingthe teachingofclassicalsociologicaltheory.Herpublicationsinclude Religion andCommodification:MerchandisingDiasporicHinduism (2010)and Religion–StateEncountersinHinduDomains:FromtheStraitsSettlementsto Singapore (2011).
DivyaVaid isAssistantProfessorintheCentrefortheStudyofSocial Systems,SchoolofSocialSciences,atJawaharlalNehruUniversity.Her researchinterestsincludethestudyofsocialstratification,socialmobility andinequalities,educationalattainment,andtheapplicationofquantitative researchmethods.Shehaspublishedinjournalssuchasthe AnnualReviewof Sociology, ContemporarySouthAsia and AsianSurvey,andistheauthorof UnevenOdds:SocialMobilityinContemporaryIndia (2018).
ModernityandHinduism
TorkelBrekke
Inhistoricalandsocialscienceresearchtheterm ‘modernity’ isdefinedin variousways,butonthemostgenerallevelitreferstodeepprocesses oftransformationintheorganizationofeconomicactivityassociatedwith industrializationaswellaschangesintheorganizationofhumanlifeaccompaniedbynewworldviewsandvalues.Itiscommonplacetoseethese processesofmodernityasoriginatinginWesternEuropesometimebetween thesixteenthandnineteenthcenturiesandbeingexportedtoothercontinents throughprocessesofglobalization,notleastinthecontextofcolonialism.Ina bookcalled HinduismandModernity,DavidSmith(2003:21–2)usestheidea oftheJuggernaut,thegreatHindutemplewagonatPuriinEasternIndia,a metaphorofunstoppablesocietalprocessescrushinganybodywhogetsinthe way.Modernityandcolonialism withtheiroftenimmenseeconomicand socialdisruptions areJuggernautsinthissense.ButSmith(2003:202–3)also endshistreatmentofmodernityandHinduismwiththesuggestionthatIndiais moreadvancedthanitspreviouscolonialmasters,inthesensethatIndian societyhasmanaged atleasttosomeextent tocometotermswithstaggering religiousandethnicdiversity.Asseveralchaptersinthisvolumewillexplain,the managementofdiversityinIndiaisnotsimpleandstraightforward.
Thismeansthatinavolumelikethistherearegoodreasonstousetheterm ‘modernHinduism’ torefertoculturalandreligiousdevelopmentsthatare resultsofcontactbetweenIndiaandtheoutsideworldoreffectsofprocessesof globalizationmoregenerally.Inthissense,ahistoricalpointofdeparturecould betheBattleofPlasseyin1757,afterwhichtheBritishsecuredtheirpresencein Bengal.Ourstartingpointcouldalsobepushedforwardtotheendofthe NapoleonicWarsin1815,afterwhichtheBritishfacednocompetitionintheir gradualcolonizationofSouthAsia.Fromthistime,theforeignpowerandits militaryandadministrativeapparatuswouldengageinbureaucraticandeducationalpracticesthatwouldhavegreatconsequencesforHinduculture.
Butthereisaproblemwithanapproachwhereweuseaclearlydefined startingpointformodernHinduism,astartingpointthathastodowith India’sinteractionwithBritainandtherestoftheWesternworld.Itwould makeusoblivioustoreligiousdevelopmentsinIndiathatstartedlongbefore andthatshouldbeanalysed firstofallbylookingatculturalandpolitical developmentswithinthesubcontinent.Thisiswhythisbookhasa first chapterthatmapsanddiscussestheimportanttransformationsthattook placefromthelate fifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturies,whenreligious geniusessuchasCaitanya(1486–1533)andVallabhacarya(1473–1531) foundednewVaisnava bhakti movementsandKabir(1440–1518)relativized boundariesbetweenIslamandHinduisminhismysticalvisions,whileGuru Nanak(1469–1539)foundedSikhisminthePunjab,collectingthereligious impulsesfromarangeofunorthodoxHindutraditionsaswellasfromIslam. However,althoughitisimportanttotracethelocaldevelopmentsthatresulted inwhatwemaycallearlymodernHinduismasaprecursorandbackgroundto modernHinduism,themainfocusofthevolumewillbeondevelopments startinginthenineteenthcentury.
IfthehistoricallimitsofmodernHinduismmustremainsomewhatvague, somustthedistinctionsbetweenwhatcountsasmodernandnot.Alotofthe practicesandideasthatwecall ‘Hindu’ todayarecontinuations,ornatural developments,ofearlierformsofHinduism.Vedicsacrificialritual,forinstance,hasahistorystretchingbackthreemillenniaandsurvivestodayin partsofSouthIndiainmuchthesameformsasinancienttimes,althoughthe Vedicritualsystemhasalsoadaptedtochangingcircumstances(Smith2016). Inwhatsensecanwesaythatsuchrituals,asperformedtoday,represent modern Hinduism?AretheyelementsofmodernHinduismsimplybecause theytakeplaceinamodernsociety?Orshouldweseethemasculturalrelics, remnantsoftraditionthatexist alongside themodernitythatsurroundsthem? Theanswertothisquestionmustbethatby ‘modernHinduism’ wedonot meanallformsofHinduismthatareobservableinIndia,oroutsidethe subcontinent,inthemodernperiod.Allchaptersinthisvolumehavebeen specificallycommissionedbytheeditorbecausetheirtopicstellussomething importantaboutwhatis different intheHindutraditionasaresultof modernity.
Historicalscholarshiphasinvestigatedhowcolonialismchangedreligion andcultureinIndiaandsetinmotionachainofeventswhereHinduism wouldbecomemorealignedwithWesternsystemsofthoughtandwhere voicesrepresentingHinduismwouldbecomemoreconcernedaboutthesocial illsassociatedwith,andsometimesjustifiedby,theauthorityofHindutradition.InthiscommonconceptionofmodernHinduism,thereisaninevitable tension,evencontradiction,betweenthetraditionalandthemodern.Whatis more,themodernisassociatedwithprogressandenlightenmentwhilethe traditionalisassociatedwithbackwardnessandsocialills.Often,modern
Hinduismisassociatedwiththereligioustransformationsinitiatedbygreat reformist figures,suchasRammohunRoyorSvāmiDayānandSarasvatī,butit isimportanttostressthat modern Hinduismisnotnecessarilythesameas reformed Hinduism(Hatcher2016:8–11).
THEINVENTIONOFHINDUISM?
OneofthemostcontentiousissuesinscholarshipaboutmodernHinduismis theargumentthatHinduismisanentitycreatedbycolonialscholarshiprather thananindigenouscategory.Forthesakeofsimplicity,wemaycallthisthe Orientalistthesis,borrowingtheterm ‘Orientalism’ torefertoprocessesin whichcategorieswereconstructedbyWesternerstoclassifysocietiesofthe Orient.Thecategorieswereoftenessentializing,outofsyncwithreality,and servedpoliticalpurposessuchascategorizingandgoverningsubjectpeoples. ManyscholarshavemadetheargumentthatHinduismissuchaninvented andessentializingcategory.
ThisOrientalistargumentwasadvancedinacriticalandpolemicalwayby RonaldIndenina1990bookcalled ImaginingIndia,wheretheauthoraccused scholarsofIndiaoftransformingIndiansintoirrationalbeingswithout agency,whiletheWesternscholarpresumablyhasaccesstorealandobjective knowledgeaboutIndianhistoryandcivilization(Inden1990).Thebook generatedreactionsfromotherscholarsclaiminghiscriticismwasunfairto thosewhoworkdiligentlytoincreaseknowledgeaboutIndiaanditscultures whileattemptingtosteerclearofeitherdenigratingorromanticizingclaims andstatements.Ina1990article,TimothyFitzgeraldmadethemorelimited andmorepreciseclaimthatitisamistaketoseeHinduismasaworldreligion onaparwithChristianityandthatthetendencytomakethisfalseparallel originatedintheologicalargumentsfromwithintheChristiantradition. Fitzgerald(1990)borrowedthedistinctionbetweenworldreligionsand group-tiedreligionssuggestedbyNinianSmart,butinsistedthatitisan insufficientapproachtoresearchandteachingifweanalyseareligionasa worldreligion abstractedfromsituatedsocialrealities.Similarargumentswere developedbyRichardKing(1999)inabookthatsaid,amongotherthings, thatHinduismisamodernWesternconceptbasedonaChristianparadigmof religionwherescriptureisseentodefinetheessenceofareligioustradition.
However,asdocumentedbyBrianK.Pennington(2005),theinventionof Hinduismwasnotaone-wayprocesswherecolonialadministratorsand scholarscreatedaconceptualandinstitutionalstraitjacketforthevastreligioustraditionsofIndia.Indianintellectualsandleadersparticipatedactively inadialogueonthenatureofreligioningeneral,andofHinduismin particular,adialogueprecipitated bytheinstitutionsandchannelsof
communicationcreatedbycolonialism,initiallylocatedinthecolonial heartlandofBengalanditsmetropolisCalcutta.Somescholarsthinkthat therehasbeenenoughdeconstructionoftheconceptofHinduismandthatwe needtomoveonfromthisdebate.Aslongasweareconsciousofthefactthat themodernconceptofHinduismwasinfactconstructedbycertainhistorical processesofscholarlyenquiryanddebatefromthenineteenthcenturyand thattheconcepthasitslimitations,likeanyconceptusedtostudycultural phenomenaacrosstimeandspace,weshouldprobablynotworrytoomuch abouttheallegeddangersofusingtheconceptHinduism(Sweetman2003).
Evenifweagreethatenoughenergyhasbeenspentondebatesabout whetherornotHinduismwasinvented,andthedegreetowhichthisinvention restedonimperialandevenracistinstitutionalpractices,thereisalessonhere thatneedstobetakenseriouslyinavolumeonmodernHinduism.Thethings thatwenowcallreligionsare not thingsthatexistinastraightforwardsense, likeanimalspecies.Onthecontrary,theentitiesthatwetodaycallHinduism (andotherworldreligions)cameintobeingthroughalongprocessthatwecan call reification.ThecoreofthiswordistheLatinword res,whichmeans ‘thing’ . Reification istheprocessbywhichwemakesomethingintoathing.Religions weremadeintothingsbyavarietyofbureaucraticandscientificpractices performedbythemodernstate:measuring,counting,mapping,delimiting,and defining.Fromthelate1800s,globalprocessesincreasinglystandardizedhow religionsaredefinedandhowreligiousinstitutionsareorganized.Thisstandardizationwascloselylinkedtoprocessesofglobalization,suchastheincreased speedofinformation-sharingacrosscontinentsandtheexpansionofWestern modelsofpoliticalandbureaucraticorganization.
MODERNITYANDSTANDARDIZATION
Modernityisapowerfulforceforstandardizationinthesphereofculture, language,andreligion,particularlywhenitconvergeswiththeideologyand practicesofnationalism,whichaffectedmostsocietiesintheworldfromthe midtolatenineteenthcentury.InseveralpartsofIndia,particularlyin thecities,Hinduismwentthroughprocessesofreification,andthislaidthe foundationforHinduismtoreinventitselfasauniversalandmissionary religionincreasinglydetachedfromethnicidentities(Brekke1999).Oneresult isthatHinduteacherstodaycompetewithmissionariesfromotherreligionsto attractfollowersinWesternsocieties.Inthesepowerfulprocessesofcultural transformation,thehighlydiversereligioustraditionsthatexistedinIndia beforethemodernerawereincreasinglystandardized.Traditionsthatdidnot fitintonewsocialandpoliticalrealitiesweredefinedasoutsidethereal Hinduism.
The ĀryaSamājwasamongthemostimportantmovementsthatsoughtto reformHindureligionandcreateculturalsolidaritythatwouldtranscend sectarianandcasteboundaries,unitingHindusacrossthecountry.The organizationwasfoundedin1875bytheGujaratiBrahminSvāmiDayānand Sarasvatī (1824–83)andwasveryinfluentialinthePunjabinthenorth-westof thesubcontinent.Dayānand’sbook SathyārthPrakāsh, firstpublishedin1875, wouldhaveamajorinfluenceonthedevelopmentofmodernHinduismin northernIndia,aswouldthemanylaterpublicationsfromthe ĀryaSamāj. The ĀryaSamājwaspartofabroadspectrumofreligiousreformeffortstaking placeinthePunjabandbeyondinthe finaldecadesofthenineteenthcentury, notonlylockinghornswithotherreformistHindus,butalsomaking fierce rhetoricalattacksagainstSikhismandIslam(Jones1976:ch.5).Thereligious andsocialreformpromotedbythe ĀryaSamājwassimilarlyopposedbyother Hindugroups,whofeltthattheythreatenedorthodoxHinduism.Throughout northernIndia, dharma societiesconceptualizedthemselvesascaretakersof SanātanaDharma thetrue,eternalHinduism andsoughttoprovidea unitedfrontagainstthe ĀryaSamājandlike-mindedmodernreformists (Jones1976:ch.4;Zavos2001).Theself-proclaimeddefendersoforthodoxy foundseveralissuesofgreatsymbolicvalueonwhichtofocustheirpublic campaigns:cowprotectionandthetraditionalritualrolesofimages(mūrti) weretwoessentialissues.
Althoughindirectcompetitionforfollowersandculturalhegemony,the modernreformistsandthetraditionalistSanātanistsoftenagreedonthe needforunityandsolidarityinthefaceofforeignruleandChristianmissionaryactivity.Theydisagreed,however,aboutthebasicorganizingprinciplesthatwouldbringaboutIndia-wideHinduunity.Thereformistsbelieved thatcaste andparticularlytheoppressionofthelowercastesand untouchables wasanobstacletounity,whiletheorthodoxoftensoughtto retainthehighstatusoftheBrahminsandreferredtotraditionandscripture todefendsocialhierarchies.Whenwemovefromthelatenineteenthtothe earlytwentiethcentury,suchdisagreementswerelargelyovershadowedby newandpowerfulforcesofHindunationalismthatinsistedonunityand solidarityacrossbarriersofgeography,class,andcaste.
Inthisprocessofnineteenth-centurystandardization,Vaisnavismwas oftenelevatedtothestatusofbeingthe ‘real’ religionoftheHindus,atthe expenseofotherculturalandreligioustraditions.TheHinduismsthatdidnot makeitintothenewstandardversionofthereligionwereoftentraditionsthat didnotsitwellwiththemoralityofanemergingurbanmiddleclassinfluenced byChristiannormsprevailinginVictorianBritain.Asacaseinpoint, Tantrismwas ‘thepreponderantreligiousparadigm’ inIndiahistorically,but wasincreasinglymarginalizedbothbymiddle-classHindusandbymodern scholarsintheformulationofamoderntypeofHinduism(White2006:2–3). Wecouldsay,then,thatstandardizationalsohasanaspectofsanitation.
InBenares,theimportantwriterandoratorBhāratenduHariśchandra lookedforthebasicingredientsofauniversalHinduisminVai : s : navism.He calledthiscollectiveuniversalHindureligion Hindudharma,andsoughtto offerhiscountrymenareligionthatwoulduniteallHindusofthesubcontinentandbethebasisfornationalreligiousidentity(Dalmia1997).Heworked forthestatusofbothHinduismandtheHindilanguageinthefaceof colonialismandthechallengefromChristianmissionariesinIndia.Svāmi VivekānandawasaslightlylaterproponentofastandardizedformofHinduism.HesawtheAdvaitaVedāntatraditionasthecoreofHinduism,andhe wasakey figureintheprocessofelevatingVedāntatoHinduismparexcellence.VivekānandawaspartofaglobalizedacademicdebatewithWestern andotherAsianscholarsaboutthehistoryandtheologyofIndianreligions (King1999:ch.6,pp.118–19;Brekke2002).
Anhonestcritiqueofthecategoriesweuseinthestudyofreligionwould needtodiscusshowtheacademicstudyofreligionitselfwasimportantinthe processesofstandardizationandformattingofreligions,includingHinduism. Towardstheendofthenineteenthcentury,Europeanscholarsstartedconceptualizingtheworldasconsistingofacertainnumberofgreatandrelatively cohesiveculturalunitsthatcouldbecalled worldreligions (Masuzawa2005). Theywereoftheopinionthattheworldreligionswereshapedbytheir foundationaltexts,andtheiradvancedtraditionsoftextualinterpretation, whicharetypicallythedomainsoflearnedpriesthoods.Exceptforafew scatteredtribalsocietiesthatstillheldontowhatwasperceivedasilliterate magicalworldviews,humanityasawholecouldnowquiteneatlybedivided intotheseworldreligions.Inotherwords,thisearlystudyofreligionscouldbe accusedofanelitistbias,andinthestudyofIndiathismeantthatthereal HinduismcouldbefoundinSanskrittexts.
ThiswasperhapsmostclearlyformulatedbytheacademicsuperstarFriedrichMaxMüller(1823–1900),whowasprofessorofcomparativephilologyat theUniversityofOxfordandafriendofseveralHinduleadersofhisday.Max Müllercreatedtheimportantbookseriescalled TheSacredBooksoftheEast, inwhichreligioustextsfromIndiaandChinawerepresentedtotheWestern publicinEnglishtranslation.Hewasalsoamongthekey figuresbehindthe creationofanewworldofacademicOrientalistcongressesandjournalsaimed atunderstandingtheculturesoftheworldeastoftheBosporus.Alessonto bedrawnfromthehistoryofthedisciplinesthatstudyHinduismand otherreligionscouldbethatweare asscholars,students,orjustinterested readers implicatedinthereificationandstandardizationofreligion.
ProcessesofreificationandstandardizationhavenotstoppedafterIndian independencein1947.Majorpublicinstitutions suchasschools,hospitals, prisons,andthemilitary haveemergedasanimportantfocusforresearchin thesociologicalstudyofmodernreligionintheWesternworld.TheinteractionsbetweenreligionandIndianpublicinstitutionshavesofarreceived
lessattentionandcouldbeaninterestingfocusformoreresearchabout modernHinduismandabouthowthemodernstateshapesreligion.For instance,theIndianarmyhasestablishedacorpsofchaplainsfromthe recognizedreligionsofthecountry,followingaWesternmodel,whilestill nurturingdeep-rooted,indigenousmilitary(or ‘martial’)culturesofvarious Indianethnicandreligiousgroups(Brekke2016).
Since1989,wehavewitnessedarapidintensificationintheforcesthat compelreligiousorganizationtorelatetoeachotherinanemergingglobal fieldofreligion.TheInternetisonetechnologicalpreconditionforthis developmenttoday.Inaglobalizedreligiousenvironmentthereisalsoa certaindegreeofconsciousemulationtakingplace,inthesensethatHindu movementsandleaderstaketheircuefromotherreligionsinordertobuild strongorganizations.TheVishvaHinduParishad(VHP),ortheWorldHindu Council,akeyorganizationforHindunationalisminIndiaandinthe diaspora,hasseenSemiticreligionsasatemplateforthereorganizationand strengtheningofHinduism.Foundedin1964bythelawyerShivShankar Apte,theVHPhasbeenconcernedthatHinduismhadnointegratedstructure thatcanservetouniteHindusunderacommonculturalandpoliticalidentity, andfromthe1980sHindunationalistsmadeimportantadvancesintheways theyorganizedthemselves.TheyoftenfeltthattheotherreligionsinIndia werethreatstoHinduculture,andhencedecidedtoemulatesomeofthe organizingprinciplesofthese forinstance,bybuildinganovelecclesiastical structure.Processesofreificationandstandardizationoftenhavepolitical implications.RobertE.Frykenberg(1997:82)isnotaloneamongscholars onIndiainclaimingthattheconceptofHinduismasamonolithicreligious communityhasdone ‘enormous,evenincalculable,damage’ tothepeaceand securityoftheIndianpoliticalsystem.
RomilaThapar(1997)haspointedoutthattheemergenceofwhatshecalls SyndicatedHinduismhasbeenaprocesscloselyentwinedwithnewpolitical andeconomicrealitiesandtheemergenceofanewIndianmiddleclass.She notesthatthelatenineteenthandtwentiethcenturiesarenottheonlyperiod whenemergingsocialgroupshaveexpressedtheiraspirationsbycreatingnew religiousmovements,orsectsifyouwill.However,shepointsoutthatthenovel elementintoday’sIndiaistheattempttoincludeandrepresentallHindus underthesamebannerofamonolithicworldreligionaccordingtothetemplate ofChristianityandIslam(Thapar1997:78–9).Classstillplaysamajorrolein thecontinuoustransformationofHinduism,andthisisreflectedinseveralof thechaptersinthisbook,aswhenKatjudiscussesHindunationalismandits relationtothemiddleclass,orwhenFrøystadexploreswhyNewAgeHinduism tookoffamongurbanmiddle-classHindusfromthe1990sonwards.
ThestandardizedVedāntathatoftenbecomesshorthandformodern Hinduismwasrootedfromitsbeginningsinaparticularsocio-economic segmentofIndiansociety(Fuller2009).InBengal,wheremuchofthesocial
andreligiousreformsstarted,thisnewclasswascommonlyreferredto asthe bhadralok literally,thegoodpeople.Animportantaspectofthe developmentofmodernHinduismistheshiftinculturalauthorityaway fromtraditionalcentrestothisnewclass.The bhadralok wasasocialgroup heldtogetherbycertainculturalandeconomicaspirations,withaviewof themselvesasbeingasignificantfactorinthelifeofthecolonialmetropolis (Mukherjee1976).
ManytalentedandhighlyinfluentialrepresentativesoftheHindumiddle classthatemergedinBengalfromthe1830sonwardsidentifiedwithwhathas beencalleda bourgeois Vedānta(Hatcher2007).ThiswasatypeofVedānta thatmatchedtheaspirationsandlifestylesofthemiddleclasses:therejection ofworldrenunciationandtheembraceofworldlyinitiative,business,and seculareducation.ItisimportanttoacknowledgetheroleofmoderneducationintheculturalandreligioustransformationstakingplaceinIndia,starting approximatelyfromthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury.Toacertainextent, theremakingandreformofHinduismthatstartedinthisperiodwasdrivenby studentsinhighereducation,withdebatesonreligiousreformoftentaking placeinthecollegesanduniversitiesthatwereestablishedintheperiod.From thesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,thereemergedanewsocialgroupin Bengal,particularlyinCalcutta,thatconsistedofstudentsenrolledineducationalinstitutionswhereEnglishwasthemediumofinstructionandthe subjectstaughtwere ‘modern’.Science,economics,engineering,history,and lawweretaughtaccordingtoBritishstandardsandconcepts.Inthe1880s therewereover3,000ofthesemoderncollegestudentsinBengal(which mainlymeantCalcutta);in1904thenumberhadgrowntoalmost10,000, andbetween1875and1921asmanyas200,000Bengalispassedtheentrance examinationtothecollegesofthispartofIndia(Berwick1995).Theywere overwhelminglyHindus(Muslimswereunderrepresented),andtheymostly belongedtothehighercastesofBengalisociety.Thiswasaveryimportant group,politicallyandculturally,andherethereformerscould findlikemindedpeersandvenuesfordebatingnewideas.Itisperhapsnocoincidence thatatthetimeofwritingthisintroduction in2018 importantcontestationsaboutthenatureofHinduismtakeplaceonuniversitycampusesand amongstudentsinIndia.
THECONTRIBUTIONS
Thisvolumeisdividedintothreeparts.The firstpartlooksatthehistorical backgroundtomodernconceptualizationsofHinduism.InChapter1,Adrian PlaumapsdeeptransformationsinHinduismfromthelate fifteenthandearly sixteenthcenturies.Thatisthebeginningofwhatisnowcommonlyreferred
toastheearlymodernperiod,whennovelmodesofdevotionemergedin Indianreligiosity,alteringtherelationshipbetweendevoteeanddeity,and sometimesalsothedevotee’ssocialidentity.Newpatternsoforganization arose,andvernacularlanguagesacquirednewculturalroles.Thesechanges allowedreligiousmovementstodefinethemselvesasbelongingtoafamilyof religioustraditions,thuscontributingtonewideasofacommonHindu identity.Plaulooksatkey figures,suchasKabīr,Nānak,Caitanya,Sūrdās, Mīrābāī,andTulsīdās,andemploystheconceptsof bhakti, organization, and language,highlightingtheuniqueinterrelationsbetweentheseelementsin earlymodernIndia,aswellashowtheyallowedforunprecedentedshiftsin religiouscultures.ThedevelopmentsdescribedbyPlaupointinthedirection ofabasicquestionalsoalreadydiscussed:whatdoestheemergenceofa distinctHinduidentityintheearlymodernperiodmeanforthequestionof whetherHinduismitselfisamodernconstruct?Plaushowshowpopular religioustraditionsemergingintheearlymodernperiodprovideuswith uniquesourcesofinsightintotheimaginationofmodernHinduism.
InChapter2,DermotKillingleydoestwothingsthatareimportanttocreatea startingpointfromwhichtothinkaboutmodernHinduism.First,hegivesa broadoverviewofthefundamentaltransformationsthattookplaceinthe politics,economy,education,andculturallifeofBengalattheendofthe eighteenthandthebeginningofthenineteenthcenturies.ThispartofIndia wasexposedtoBritishcolonialism first,andthisiswheremanyofthepolitical andintellectualreactionstothecolonialsituation,andtootherforcesofglobalization,wouldstart.Secondly,Killingleyprovidesanintroductiontothelifeand workofRammohunRoy,situatingthisgreatintellectualinthetransformative periodofIndia’shistorycalledthe ‘Bengalrenaissance’.Roywasperhapsthe mostimportant figureinthetransmissionofreligiousandphilosophicalideas betweenIndiaandtheWesternworldintheearlynineteenthcentury.Killingley pointsoutthatRammohunRoy,althoughcriticaltoanumberofsocially undesirablepractices,neverrejectedHinduism,showinghiscontemporaries thatonecanindeedbeaHinduinamodernandinternationalenvironment.
InChapter3,HansHarderlooksatthecontributionsofBankimchandra Chattopadhyay(1838–94), animportantBengaliintellectualandwriter,and discusseshiskeywritingsrelevanttomodernHinduism.Bankimchandrawas primarilyanauthor andnotanorganization-builder anditwasthrough hiswritingsthatheinfluencedyoungergenerationsofHindureformersand Indiannationalists.Bankimchandrameritsachapterinthisvolumenotleast becauseofhisearlyandsophisticatedattemptstodefineHinduism,and,as Harderhighlights,hisreinterpretationof dharma asbothequivalentanda counter-conceptto ‘religion’,aswellashisclaimofinherentspiritualityand tolerancebeingdistinctivefeaturesofHinduism.
TheHinduandBengalirenaissanceofthenineteenthcenturyplaced emphasisonreasonandrationality,acorollarybeingthatitoftenentaileda
rejectionoficonic bhakti becauseitwasanemotionalstrandofHinduism centredonapersonalgod,seenastheoppositeofamodernandrational Hinduism.However,thereligiouscurrentrepresentedbyBhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī (1874–1936)andtheinstitutionthathefoundedin1918,the GaudiyaMathandMission,generatedarenewedinterestin bhakti religiosity. InChapter4,FerdinandoSardellagivesanintroductiontothisreligious innovatorandhisimportantlegacyofagrowing,missionaryformofHinduism. ThechapterprovidesanoverviewofthelifeofBhaktisiddhāntaandabrief historyofhismovement,whichincludesoneofitsmostprominentinternationaloffshoots,theInternationalSocietyforKrishnaConsciousness, popularlyknownastheHareKrishnamovement.
Movingawayfromthereformsofthenineteenthandearlytwentieth centuries,thenextpartofthebookcontains fivechapterseachpresenting keydevelopmentsandchangesinreligiouspracticeinmodernHinduism.In Chapter5,TanishaRamachandranlooksathowmoderntechniquesinthe creationofreligiousimageshavechangedthereligiousvaluesandpracticesof the mūrti, theimage.HerchapterillustrateshowtheHinduimagetakeson multiplemeaningsandfunctions.Analysingprocessesofsacralization,politicization,display,appropriation,commoditization,andprotestatvarious pointsinhistory,RamachandranlooksathowtheHinduimagehasbeen signifiedandresignifiedbyHindusandnon-Hindus.Hinduimagesservea multitudeofpurposesinreligious,social,political,artistic,aswellascommercialrealms.RamachandranalsodiscusseshowHinduimagesareinvested withnewmeaningwiththeriseofreligionontheInternet.Onthispointher chaptermayprofitablybereadinconjunctionwiththechapterbyScheifinger.
InChapter6,GayatriChatterjeelooksathowissuesofmodernityand Hinduismhavebeentreatedinakeymodernmedium: film.Chatterjee lookscloselyatseveralimportantIndian filmsthatallrevealchangingideas ontheplaceofHinduisminmodernIndia.Severalofthese filmsarehistorical. Forinstance,RammohunRoy,thesubjectofKillingley’schapter,istheheroin the1965 filmbearinghisname.Itshowsthereformerasanenlightenedman fightingsocialills,insistingthatHinduismshouldexistpeacefullywithIslam, while,accordingtoChatterjee,theportrayalalsoglossesoverseveralother, andimportant,aspectsofhislife.Thesocialandreligiousmovementsofthe nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesinspiredalargebodyofIndian films intheearlydecadesofIndiancinema,andtheseareoneofthemainfociof Chatterjee’schapter.
Tourismasweknowitisaproductofmodernity,butwhathappenswhen tourismmeetstheancientHindutraditionofpilgrimage?InChapter7,Knut AuklandshowshowIndianmodernityhasstimulatedHindupilgrimagein multiplewaysandhowmoderntourismhashelpeditgrowinpopularity.The tourismindustryhasintroducedtravelagencies,hotels,touristguides,and guidebookstothepilgrimagesitesandroutes,andthesehavetosomeextent
causedadecreaseinthedemandfortraditionalritualservices.Pilgrimsspend lesstimeatoneparticularsiteandoftenexpecttocombinepilgrimagewith othertypesoftravel,suchassightseeingorvisitingthemeparks.Inthefaceof thesechanges,somepriestshaveadaptedbycollaboratingwithtouristagenciesanddrivers,joiningthetourismtradeandcateringtoforeigntourists. Amodernliterarygenrehasemergedcombiningelementsofthetraditional pilgrimagetextswithmoderntouristinformation.TheIndianstateisamajor playerinshapingtheoperationofHindupilgrimageunderthebannerof tourismdevelopment.
InChapter8,KathinkaFrøystadbuildsonherown fieldworktoexplainthe riseofNewAgeHinduisminIndiafromthe1990s.Whatarethereasonsfor themushroomingofthesenewreligiouspracticesatthisparticulartimein history,Frøystadasks,suggestingthatthereasonsmaybefoundindeep transformationsinIndia’seconomyanditslabourmarket,aswellasinsociety atlarge.Thesechangescreatedademandforspiritualizedself-development techniques.Newgurusandnewsystemsofthoughtandpracticehelpedthe Indianmiddleclassadjusttothesetransformations.
Technologicalchangeisafundamentalelementofmodernity,andan explorationofmodernHinduismmusttakeseriouslytheroleoftechnology inreligioustransformation.Whilethenineteenthcenturysawtheintroductionoftheprintingpressasanewtoolformassmobilization,theInternethas becomeanewtechnologicalplatformforreligiousinnovationandtransformation.InChapter9,HeinzScheifingergivesanintroductiontothetopicof Hinduismonline.Hestartsbygivingabriefoverviewoftheshorthistory ofHinduismonline,withthe firstmovementsandtemplesestablishinga presenceontheWorldWideWebfromthemid-1990s.Focusingonthe coreconceptof pūjā,ScheifingerarguesthatonlineHinduismandthewider Hindutraditionaresocloselylinkedthatitmakeslittlesensetoseetheonline andtheofflineasseparaterealms.Infact,onlineHinduismisanintegralpart ofcontemporaryHinduism,andtheInternethasalreadyspurredinteresting questionsanddilemmasoftheologyandreligiousauthorityintheHindu traditionandwillcertainlycontinuetodoso.
AkeycharacteristicofmodernHinduismisitsinteractionwithforcesof globalization,andnowhereisthismoreevidentthaninthemigrationof Indians,especiallywiththeintroductionofindenturedlabourfromthemidnineteenthcentury.InChapter10,VineetaSinhawritesaboutthemodern Hindudiaspora.TheHindudiasporaislargeandinfluential,anditmayseem oddthatavolumeaboutmodernHinduismdoesnothavemorechapterson aspectsofdiasporalifeandtheinteractionbetweendiasporicHinduismand India.Thereasonforthisisthattheseriesofwhichthisvolumeisaparthasa separatevolumededicatedtotheHindudiaspora.
InPart3ofthebookwemovetoissuesofpolitics,ethics,andlaw.Thispart containschaptersthatmapandexplainthepowerfullegalandpoliticalcontexts
createdbythemodernstate firstthecolonialgovernmentandthenthe IndianRepublic whichhaveshapedHinduisminnewways.InChapter11, ManjariKatjupresentsthehistoryofHindunationalism,startingintheearly twentiethcentury.ShegoesintotheHindutvaideologyofSavarkar,Golwalkar, andotherideologues,andgivesahistoryofkeyorganizationssuchastheHindu Mahasabha,theRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS),theVishwaHinduParishad (VHP),andthepoliticalpartypresentlyrulingIndia,theBharatiyaJanata Party(BJP).Katju’schaptergivesabroadbackgroundtosomeofthemost difficultdebatesaboutHinduidentitytoday debatesaboutethno-religious chauvinismandabouttheprospectsforpeacefulcoexistenceofHindus, Muslims,Christians,Sikhs,andothergroupsinIndia.
ReligioniscertainlynottheonlypotentialdividinglineinmodernIndia, and,inChapter12,DivyaVaidandAnkurDattainvestigatethecomplexissue ofcasteanditsrelationshiptomodernHinduism.Theirchapterstartsby drawingupabroadcanvasofclassicaltheoriesaboutcastefromsociologyand anthropology,consideringcasteinrelationtothe sanskritic conceptsof varna and jati.Theauthorsthenmoveontotheemergenceofcasteinitsmodern forminthecolonialperiod,lookinginparticularattheroleofDalitleader B.R.Ambedkar,andDalitpoliticsmoregenerally.Thechapteralsodiscusses casteinrelationtoworkandoccupation,tracingthetransformationofcastein thefaceofcontemporarysocio-economicchange.VaidandDatta’sdiscussion oftheemergenceofamodernconceptionofcasteinthecolonialperiod convergeswithwhathasalreadybeendiscussedconcerningthe ‘invention’ or ‘standardization’ ofHinduism.Casteasamodernformationwaslargely shapedintheperiodofBritishcolonialruleinIndia,theauthorsstate,andthe constructionofmoderncastewasaccompaniedbythelargerframingof Hinduismasamodernreligion.
InChapter13,WernerMenskilooksathowtheIndianstategrappleswith theissueofHindulaw.Menskiengageswithbothcolonialandpostcolonial timesashedigsintothecomplexrelationshipsbetweenlawandreligion,and theimpactofstateregulationonHindulawinIndia.Thekeyquestionto Menskiiswhethercolonialandpostcoloniallegalinterventionshaveturned ‘Hindulaw’ intosomethingthatisfarremovedfromthelivedrealitiesof India’sHindupopulation.AsHindusinIndiaoftencontinuetoliveby customarynormsandethics,ratherthanfollowingmodernstatelaw,significantdiscrepanciesbetweenformallawandthe ‘livinglaw’ exist.Menski suggeststhat ‘therightlaw’ forIndiatodayisaculture-specific,hybrid,plural constructcontainingHinduelements.
ContemporaryIndiafacesseriouschallengesconcerningtheenvironment andsustainability,anditisonlynaturalthatmodernreligiousleadersshould addresssuchissues.InChapter14,PankajJaindiscussesenvironmentalismin modernHinduism.Withanacknowledgementthatsomeofthekeyideascan betracedfarbackinthehistoryofHinduethics,thefocusofthechapterison
present-dayactivismanddebates.JainlooksatseveralHindugroupsbutgives particularattentiontotheenvironmentalworkofBishnoisandSwadhyayis. Henotesthat,whilemanymodernurbanHinduorganizationshaveincluded environmentalismintheiragendas,themajorityofruralHinducommunities areyettowakeuptomodernenvironmentalmovements,whichstartedafter the1970s.MostoftheHinduorganizationsstartingoutinthetwentiethand twenty-firstcenturiesarerespondingtoecologicalproblemswithmodern means,oftensimilartoWestern-styleactivism.
InChapter15,DavidGellnerandChiaraLetizialookatHinduismin Nepal.Sinceitscreationinthemid-eighteenthcentury,thestateofNepal hasclaimedtobetheonlytrueHindukingdomintheworld.Gellnerand LetiziashowhowtheassertionofNepal’sHinduidentitybecameanexplicit andpoliticizedstatestrategyinthedecadesbetween1960and1990,andhow thedefinitionofthestateasHinduwaschallengedafter1990,culminatingin thedeclarationofsecularismintheaftermathofthecivilwarbetween1996 and2006.Theauthorsofferalotofdetailsonhowtheconceptofsecularism itselfbecameamainboneofcontentionindebatesbetweenthesecularists anddefendersofHinduism.ThesedebateshaveclearparallelsinIndian debatesaboutthepositionofHinduisminthelegalandpoliticalframework ofthestate,andthisisoneofthereasonswhyGellnerandLetizia’schapter isinstructiveforabroadunderstandingofHinduism’srelationshipto modernstates.TheNepaliconstitutionof2015institutionalizesashiftin theunderstandingofHinduism.Hinduismtodayisbeginningtobeconceptualizedasonereligionamongmanyratherthanasacollectiveandinherited identity.
REFERENCES
Berwick,John(1995). ‘ChātraSamāj:TheSignificanceoftheStudentCommunityin Bengal c.1870–1922’,inRajatKantaRay, Mind,BodyandSociety:LifeandMentality inColonialBengal.Calcutta:OxfordUniversityPress,232–93. Brekke,Torkel(1999). ‘TheConceptualFoundationofMissionaryHinduism’ , Journal ofReligiousHistory,23/2:203–14. Brekke,Torkel(2002). MakersofModernIndianReligionsintheLateNineteenth Century.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Brekke,Torkel(2016). ‘ReligiousTeachersintheIndianArmy’,inTorkelBrekke andVladimirTikhonov(eds), MilitaryChaplaincyinanEraofReligiousPluralism. NewDelhi:CambridgeUniversityPress,15–39. Dalmia,Vasudha(1997). TheNationalizationofHinduTraditions:Bhāratendu Hari śchandraandNineteenth-CenturyBanaras.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Fitzgerald,Timothy(1990). ‘Hinduismandthe “WorldReligion” Fallacy’ , Religion,20: 108–18.
