Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Until the nineteenth century, the word “Hindu” had no specific religious meaning and simply referred to the people who lived east of the Indus River, whatever their beliefs. (The Indian Supreme Court itself has held that “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism.’”) It was only when the census introduced by the British colonial authorities in 1871 included Hindu as a religious designation that many Indians began to think of themselves and their country as Hindu."
I hope that what you are really asking is "Did the British presence and the related subservience of Indians serve to unify the existing Hindus into a more cohesive religion?" The most likely answer is that any cohesiveness brought on by colonialism or empires is not a real change as much as a temporary repression. Religions don't react much to that.
I strongly doubt Christianity or Islam would exist as major world religions without the imperial polities that either adopted (Christianity) or were driven by (Islam) them, or spread them later. Had a couple of battles in the 7th century CE turned differently, our world might have been Zoroastrian from the old Persian Empire, so perhaps some Mormon form of Zoroastrianism might have emerged in North America.
Hindu nationalists have been adamant in claiming that the Aryans were "nobles" native to India and not invaders into the Indian subcontinent, and that Vedic Brahminism was not forcefully imposed on a largely Dravidian (Tamil) population, which was assimilated to the lower, and inferior, castes.
Additionally, the full range of philological and archaeological data simply do not support the Out of India Theory. In my arguments with South Asian proponents of Out of India Theory I get a sense of arguing with Creationists; they are excellent at bringing up ambiguities and problems in the standard model, but they are blithely unconcerned with the total implausibility of the alternative model that they offer. There is zero chance of them being convinced, they simply need “good enough” arguments to keep you unbalanced.
That's not to say that a cultural synthesis didn't occur over the last 2,500 years.
The problem is that both the country and the religion share a common root, the Sanskrit Sindhu which was the name for the Indus river. So whether some historical work was referring to the polity or the religion (and that distinction is very Western and Christian) is unclear.
The problem is that both the country and the religion share a common root, the Sanskrit Sindhu which was the name for the Indus river. So whether some historical work was referring to the polity or the religion (and that distinction is very Western and Christian) is unclear.
Well, if Sindhu is a Sanskrit word that was brought into the Indian subcontinent by Indo-Aryan invaders in 2000-1500 BCE, the name for the "Indus" River (sindhu means "river" in IE) likely dates from then and not before. If it does date to before the Indo-Aryan invasion, it is not an IE word and was likely imported from native sources into Sanskrit.
For another pretty definitive source on this (TheHindu.com), see:
The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did.
Imho, the introduction of monotheism was the real 'game changer'.
Judaism came to India a few hundred years before Christ, and Christianity came to India in 100 CE. They didn't affect India as much as Islam did, obviously.
Interestingly, Hindutva nationalists regard Judaism as a traditional religion of India and do not hate it like they hate Christianity and Islam (probably because it does not proselytize) .
Was there such a thing as a unified Hinduism before British rule in India, or were the Indian sects of Hinduism sects in their own right, which often violently clashed with each other as much as they clashed with Islam? https://www.newstatesman.com/node/156145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Imho, the introduction of monotheism was the real 'game changer'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Judaism came to India a few hundred years before Christ, and Christianity came to India in 100 CE. They didn't affect India as much as Islam did, obviously.
Interestingly, Hindutva nationalists regard Judaism as a traditional religion of India and do not hate it like they hate Christianity and Islam (probably because it does not proselytize) .
I'm not familiar enough with the above to comment. Noting you're discussing a more than 2000 year year timeframe here & there are likely many historical realities, factors & circumstances framing.
The following is just a general personal comment re: religion. The polytheistic forms seemed to be the earliest expression of religious feeling. When there are many Gods, it's alright if one prefers this one to that one, for example. When there is an insistence of one God only!, it seems to open the door for clashes over who is the one God.
I suspect that centuries of Muslim domination has done more to unify Hinduism than anything the British Raj might've.
Hardly. Even when the Hindu Maratha empire consolidated power and eventually defeated the Mughals/regional Islamic powers to re-establish Hindu sovereignty over the subcontinent, they were viewed upon rather unfavorably by the various Hindu principalities and local governments.
Hardly. Even when the Hindu Maratha empire consolidated power and eventually defeated the Mughals/regional Islamic powers to re-establish Hindu sovereignty over the subcontinent, they were viewed upon rather unfavorably by the various Hindu principalities and local governments.
Off topic, just curious why you chose to name yourself after a EU Union/US State Department registered terrorist group who's claim to fame is the invention of suicide vests. It's not like we have members with titles like TrueISIS or TrueTaliban.
Maybe you just thought the name sounded cool? You may want to reconsider.
Hardly. Even when the Hindu Maratha empire consolidated power and eventually defeated the Mughals/regional Islamic powers to re-establish Hindu sovereignty over the subcontinent, they were viewed upon rather unfavorably by the various Hindu principalities and local governments.
The Marathas were beaten by the Durrani and never managed to establish sovereignty over the subcontinent. The fact that they were unpopular to some Hindu rulers is not surprising. Politics make strange bedfellows and I wouldn't expect India to be an exception. I would find it surprising if centuries of Mughal rule did not change Hindu identity. The rise of Sikhism is one obvious change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
