The Contemporary Construction of Hindu Identity:
 Hindu Universalism and Hindu Nationalism

Denise Cush and Catherine Robinson
Study of Religions Department
Bath College of Higher Education
Newton Park
Bath BA2 9BN, UK


There are currently two diametrically opposed images of Hinduism: one image is of tolerance and respect for all religions, the other image is of anti-Muslim propaganda and practice; the former derives from what we will call Hindu universalism, the latter from what we will call Hindu nationalism. 'Hindu universalism' denotes here the ideology that all religions are true and therefore worthy of toleration and respect.  Where this ideology intersects with nationalism, such nationalism aspires to be Indian in the sense of representing and harmonising diverse religious constituencies within a unified political system. 'Hindu nationalism' here denotes the ideology that defines the nation in Hindu terms by asserting the Hindu to be synonymous with the Indian and hence regarding Hinduism as the basis of culture and citizenship. However, for any number of reasons, Hindu universalism has come to be equated with Hinduism so that the phenomenon of Hindu nationalism has been regarded as somehow 'un-Hindu' or even 'anti-Hindu'. That this has happened is the outcome of a complex combination of cultural factors.<1>

The following discussion makes use of terms drawn from a fuller typology of positions on religious diversity devised by Denise Cush in 'A Suggested Typology of Positions on Religious Diversity' (in Journal of Beliefs and Values, 15:2, November 1994). Amongst the reactions to the plurality of religions are the 'exclusivist' and the 'inclusivist'.<2>

The exclusivist position maintains that the proponent is in full possession of the truth and that other different worldviews are clearly in error. Exclusivists divide into two basic types, the 'monoexclusivist' and the 'henoexclusivist'. The former holds that his/her truth applies to all people irrespective of language, culture or other differences and therefore attempts to convert all to the one true worldview. The latter is equally convinced of the truth of his/her position but will limit its application to 'my people' or 'my country'. Nevertheless the henoexclusivist remains convinced of the sufficiency of this worldview and has no desire to learn from other worldviews, perhaps even seeing this as forbidden. Historical examples of the former may be seen in some missionary forms of Christianity and Islam and examples of the latter in some forms of Orthodox Judaism.

The inclusivist attempts to reconcile differences between worldviews by building the diversity of claims into a single system, such as the belief that there are many paths to one goal. Such as system often takes a hierarchical form;the hierarchical inclusivist explains differing claims as expressions of the same basic insight on lower or higher levels of truth. Thus differing views can be seen not as error, but as partial truths, or truths suitable for those at lower stages of development.  Examples of this 'levels of truth' approach can be found in Buddhism and liberal Christianity.

The second type of inclusivist accepts diverse views as all valid an equal level rather than within a hierarchy of truths. Different ways are often sees as suitable for different personalities or cultures. This non-hierarchical inclusivism may be segmentary, in that it is held that each tradition should follow its own way without confusion, whilst respecting others as equal. 


Advaita Vedanta and Hindu Universalism

Vivekananda (1863-1902), Gandhi (1869-1948) and Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) were among the most important and influential interpreters of Hinduism. They were all exponents of Vedanta, specifically the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara which, adapted in different ways, informed and inspired their Hindu universalism.

Advaita Vedanta possesses certain characteristics which meantthat it could provide a basis for Hindu universalist metaphysics and soteriology. Advaita Vedanta argues that there are levels of truth; a lower level of ordinary, mundane, everyday experience and a higher level of intuitive and immediate apprehension of ultimate reality. According to Advaita Vedanta, it is only on the lower level of truth that it is possible to conceive of a personal deity in a loving relationship with individual worshippers; only on this lower level of truth that divine grace is understood to bring worshippers to a blissful communion with God. According to Advaita Vedanta, it is only on the higher level of truth that it is possible to recognise the identity of the one soul or self with the impersonal absolute; on this higher level of truth that all concepts of distinction and differentiation dissolve in favour of the realisation of an eternally-existent union with the impersonal absolute. Yet Advaita Vedanta did not reject or repudiate religious beliefs and practices predicated upon the lower level of truth. Instead, Advaita Vedanta gave theistic religion a standing consistent with its limited and qualified nature by subordinating it to supratheistic philosophy. In this way, Advaita Vedanta acknowledged that there was truth, if on a lower level, in theistic religion and that theistic religion was a path preliminary and preparatory to supratheistic philosophy. For instance, in the introduction to his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, Sankara asserted:

"Though the Religion of Works, - which, as a 
means of attaining worldly prosperity, is enjoined
on the several castes and religious orders, - leads
the devotee to the region of the Devas and the like,
still, when practised in a spirit of complete 
devotion to the Lord and without regard to the
(immediate) results, it conduces to the purity of
the mind (sattva-suddhi). The man whose mind is pure
is competent to tread the path of knowledge, and to
him comes knowledge; and thus (indirectly) the 
Religion of Works forms also a means to the Supreme
Bliss."<3>

Advaita Vedanta thereby established a firm foundation on which Hindu universalism could be constructed by neo-Vedantins. Invariably this involved an inclusivist view of Hinduism extended beyond Hinduism to encompass the truth and validity of all religions. Even so, while Advaita Vedanta possessed these characteristics, in the past they had not been modified and made use of in such a manner for such a purpose <4>. Hindu universalism was, then, an example of the re-expression of Hinduism by modern Hindus who were both continuing and changing the tradition they inherited. It should be noted that although historically neo-Vedantins have taken the lead in developing Hindu universalism, Hindu theists have also been able to espouse Hindu universalism without compromising their beliefs. This was made possible by the concept of levels of truth which allowed theists, Ramanuja for example, to represent theistic religion, not supratheistic philosophy, as the highest expression of truth.

Vivekananda was the foremost disciple of the mystic Sri Ramakrishna. He gave coherent and consistent form to his master's rich and varied religious experience in a version of Advaita Vedanta which refracted Ramakrishna's mystical insight through a neo-Vedantic lens of Vivekananda's own manufacture.<5> This was evident when he stressed the unity of all religions, a conviction he attributed to Ramakrishna whose role he regarded as being 'to proclaim and make clear the fundamental unity underlying all religions'.<6> In line with this interpretation of Ramakrishna's teaching, speaking on the subject of 'The Hindu Religion', Vivekananda declared:

"The idea of an objective God is not untrue - in 
fact, every idea of God, and hence every religion, 
is true, as each is but a different stage in the 
journey, the aim of which is the perfect conception
of the Vedas. Hence, too, we not only tolerate, but
we Hindus accept every religion, praying in the 
mosque of the Mohammedans, worshipping before the 
fire of the Zoroastrians, and kneeling before the 
cross of the Christians, knowing that all the 
religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest
absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul
to grasp and realise the infinite, each determined
by the conditions of its birth and association, and
each of them marking a stage of progress. We gather
all these flowers and bind them with the twine of 
love, making a wonderful bouquet of worship." <7>

Not only were all religions true in Vivekananda's view but  religions were many paths leading to the one destination. As Vivekananda explained when discussing 'The Spirit and Influence of Vedanta':

"Another peculiar idea of the Vedanta is that we
must allow this infinite variation in religious
thought, because the goal is the same. As the 
Vedantist says in his poetical language, 'As so many
rivers, having their sources in different mountains,
roll down, crooked or straight, and at last come 
into the ocean - so, all these various creeds and
religions, taking their start from different
standpoints and running through crooked or straight
courses, at last come unto THEE'." <8>.

Thus Vivekananda articulated a Hindu universalist philosophy which was asserted also by Gandhi and Radhakrishnan. Vivekananda was clearly a hierarchical inclusivist, accepting other traditions within and without Hinduism as lower stages of development towards the full and final truth that is Advaita Vedanta.

Gandhi was most famous as a nationalist, but the wellspring of his nationalism and of his social conscience was his commitment to Hinduism. This commitment he combined with a recognition that all religions were true, reasoning that this was conducive to inter-religious understanding. While not criticising a person's sincere and heartfelt conversion from one religion to another religion, he did question both the methods and motives of missionaries.<9> Summarising his attitude towards this issue, Gandhi made no claims for the superiority of a particular perspective, stating that;

"After long study and experience, I have come to the
conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all
religions have some error in them; [3] all religions
are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as 
much as all human beings should be as dear to one as
one's own close relatives. My own veneration for 
other faiths is the same as that for my own faith;
therefore no thought of conversion is possible."<10>

For Gandhi, it was clear and incontrovertible that religions were many paths leading to the one destination. Every religion was a distinct discipline, a separate, self-sufficient spiritual way of life needing neither supplement nor support from any external source. Indeed, Gandhi went so far as to suggest that a person's  religious adherence was of no significance by stressing that:

"Religions are different roads converging to the same
point. What does it matter that we take different 
roads, so long as we reach the same goal? In 
reality, there are as many religions as there are
individuals." <11>

Gandhi too, then, gave a powerful and persuasive account of Hindu universalist philosophy. Gandhi however differed from Vivekananda in that his inclusivism was non-hierarchical, allowing no religion to arrogate to itself a special status. His approach was also segmentary in that he recommended that members of each tradition should strive to become better members of that tradition. On the other hand, Gandhi's segmentary inclusivism did allow for some 'learning from' each other's tradition, as in his own Catholic reading. His segments have permeable membranes! <12>

Radhakrishnan was an academic with a long and exalted academic career crowned by his election as Vice-President and then President of India. Through his many publications, he advanced the thesis that Hinduism was an assimilative and synthetic religion which acknowledged that all religions were true. Sketching this idealised portrait of Hinduism and relating it to contemporary religious pluralism, Radhakrishnan urged:

"The different religions have now come together,
and if they are not to continue in a state of 
conflict or competition, they must develop a spirit
of comprehension which will break down prejudice and
misunderstanding and bind them together as varied
expressions of a single truth. Such a spirit
characterized the development of Hinduism, which has
not been interrupted for nearly fifty centuries."<13>

Similarly, as a means of dealing peacefully with the diversity of religions in the modern world, Radhakrishnan appealed to what he represented as the Hindu tenet that religions were many paths leading to the one destination. He warned of the dangers of religious narrowness and dogmatism, insisting:

"To obliterate every other religion than one's own
is a sort of bolshevism in religion which we must
try to prevent. We can do so only if we accept
something like the Hindu solution, which seeks the
unity of religion not in a common creed but in a 
common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit
and not of organisation, a unity which secures ample
liberty not only for every individual but for every
type of organised life which has proved itself
effective. For almost all historical forms of life
and thought can claim the sanction of experience and
so the authority of God. The world would be a much
poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God 
wills a rich harmony and not a colourless 
uniformity."<14>

In proposing and promoting this line of argument in this instance, though he by no means always played down the hierarchical element of inclusivism, Radhakrishnan like Vivekananda and Gandhi was presenting Hindu universalist philosophy.

The neo-Vedanta of Vivekananda, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan which underlaid Hindu universalism differed from the classical form of Advaita Vedanta associated with Sankara and also itself contained variations on a theme. Whereas Vivekananda was perhaps closest to classical Advaita Vedanta in his allegiance to the notion of higher and lower levels of truth and the inferiority of personal conceptions of the divine which gave rise to a hierarchical inclusivism, Gandhi rejected any question of hierarchy while Radhakrishnan was at best ambivalent.

 Gandhi did not use his Advaitin-influenced concept of Truth as the criterion by which to measure the authenticity and authority of other views nor did he relegate other religions to a lesser instrumental or auxiliary role. Instead he recognised them as particularly appropriate to, and equally effective for, their adherents.<15>
 
However, although some of Radhakrishnan's statements conformed with the segmentary non-hierarchical inclusivism of Gandhi, other statements by Radhakrishnan  supported a hierarchy within Hinduism with supratheistic philosophy at its apex and accepting other religions only to the extent that they were redefined in the mould of supratheistic philosophy, in a manner more reminiscent of Vivekananda. <16>

Describing 'the modern Hindu ideology' as 'a neo-Sankaran theology in which all religions, albeit existing at different levels, ultimately point to the one truth', Ninian Smart explains:

"It suggests that religions are held apart by 
externals, institutional narrownesses, rather than 
by any essential conflict. It is the obverse of the
conclusion sometimes drawn from conflicts of
revelations and teachings, namely that all are 
false; the modern Hindu ideology declares that they
are all true. the best religion, however, is one 
which is explicitly synthesizing, all-embracing 
(this being the merit of Hinduism)."<17>

Whatever its aspirations, Hindu universalism was by its very nature unable to accommodate those religions which made exclusive claims to truth and salvation, without relativising such claims and in the process rendering the religions unrecognisable to their respective faith communities. Unlike Hinduism, where a pervasive tendency to rank, not reject, different religious beliefs and practices was formalised and systematised by Advaita Vedanta in the concept of levels of truth,<18> mainstream Christianity and Islam rejected, rather than ranked, religious beliefs and practices other than their own.<19> 

Hindu universalism required the epistemological and teleological relativisation of all religions; that is, the relativisation of their understandings of the nature of reality and the greatest good for human beings. This was unacceptable to Christians and Muslims; Christians because they believed in the unique status of Jesus Christ as saviour who promised ' I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except by me' (John 14:6) and Muslims because they believed that Muhammad was 'the Seal of the Prophets' to whom was revealed 'the Religion of Truth' (Qur'an 33:40;61:9). Christians and Muslims belonged to monoexclusivist traditions which held that there was one truth accessible and available to all people everywhere and at all times irrespective of culture, language and other differences. Consequently, neither Christians nor Muslims were in a position to permit the relativisation of their religions that Hindu universalism necessarily entailed; to have done so would have been to concede something fundamental to their religions, specifically that exclusivism which Hindu universalists execrated when they insisted upon the inclusivism of Hinduism.


Hindu Universalism and Indian Nationalism

Hindu universalism emerged as the pre-eminent philosophy of Hinduism in the context of the British Empire and was shaped and coloured by the imperial ideology to which it offered a challenge. Hindu universalism contrasted its characterisation of the tolerant spirit and temper of Hinduism with its stereotype of mainstream Christianity as intolerant, doctrinaire and evangelical. Moreover the favourable characterisation of Hinduism by which Christianity, the religion of the imperial power, was criticised, was also a means to undermine British arguments citing alleged antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims to oppose Indian independence. In the face of British charges to the contrary, Hindu universalism presented a picture of a united India with both Hindus and Muslims looking forward to a peaceful future together. Thus Hindu universalism served the purpose of nationalism by enabling those who espoused it to establish the credentials of India as a modern nation-state.<20>

The model of nationalism with which Hindu universalism was associated  was liberal and constitutional. It was also secular, but secular in a special sense related to Hindu universalism since, as Embree shows:

"The Indian version of secularism is based not
upon a rejection of transcendental values but upon
almost a polar opposite view: the assumption that 
all religions in some fashion are true, and 
therefore no rational person will take offense at
another's ritual."<21>

It was this inclusivist model of nationalism, underpinned by Hindu universalism, that dominated the Indian National Congress in the years immediately before and after independence in 1947. Hindu universalism was in the ascendant among the Indian elite who were the opinion-makers at home and abroad, so much so that it became establishment Hinduism for export. The success of Hindu universalist propaganda was evident in the general acceptance of Hindu universalism  as 'real' Hinduism by apologists for and sympathisers with Hinduism.


Hindu Nationalism

However, Hinduism too gave rise to forms of exclusivism as Hindu nationalism demonstrated. This took the form of henoexclusivism since its exclusivism was limited to the people and country of India. Hindu nationalism was religious, radical and revivalist and despite arising under the same conditions as Hindu universalism and the kind of nationalism it influenced, it  responded to those conditions in a very different way. Hindu nationalism scorned western norms and values, identifying the Indian with the Hindu. If India was to be truly independent, the Hindu nationalists argued, it must develop organically in accordance with indigenous standards and principles, its unity deriving from the dominance of the Hindu way of life. Hindu nationalists found nothing admirable or appropriate in the western political agenda, which they regarded as an adverse alien influence on Indian life, nor were they disposed to make any concession to minority communities, especially Muslims, because that would detract from the unity of the Hindu nation. Thus, Hindu nationalism also had roots in Hinduism and  was a re-statement of the tradition to answer the needs of the present.

Long before the modern phenomenon of Hindu nationalism emerged, Hindus had a spiritual concept of the unity of India as their homeland even though there was no political unity in the sub-continent.<22> India was believed to be a holy land. To be born there was to be blessed, to leave there, or to convert to another religion, was to lose caste. India was bounded by the divine abodes at the cardinal points, Badrinath in the North; Puri, Ramesvaram and Dvaraka in the East, South and West respectively. Its very geography was sacred; a landscape dominated by sacred mountains and criss-crossed by sacred rivers, hallowed by the lives and loves of gods and goddesses, heroes and heroines.<23>

However, the modern phenomenon of Hindu nationalism emerged in response to two factors, Mughal hegemony and British imperialism. Mughal hegemony interfered with traditional Hindu polity and the mythological relationship between king and kingdom. In the most famous Hindu lawbook, Manu's dharmasastra, the king was said to be created from the gods for the benefit of the people (7:3-7) with the responsibility of upholding the order and harmony of classes and stages of life (7:35) and providing for the performance of sacrifices (7:78-79).<24>  No Muslim ruler could accept such religious responsibilities, nor the model of kingship patterned on Prthu, the first king, who made the earth fertile and in whose honour the earth was named Prthivi. Muslim hegemony therefore conditioned a stronger consciousness of distinct Hindu identity, consolidated by the rulers' pursuit of policies of proselytisation of Hindus and partiality towards Muslims.

British imperialism continued this process, by the completion of which the term 'Hindu' had lost any last vestige of its geographical referent and henceforward denoted a specific religious and cultural group of the inhabitants of the sub-continent. Moreover, British imperialism introduced to India the ideology of nationalism arising from the Enlightenment. Despite the effort to oppose indigenous nationalist aspirations which were seen as a threat to the integrity of Empire, the theory and practice of nationalism was widely disseminated among the educated elite. Consequently British imperialism, as the medium by which western ideas were communicated to India, gave Hindus the means to articulate and act upon their consciousness of themselves as a specific group.

Whereas the inclusivist nationalism associated with Hindu universalism responded to these conditions by asserting a holistic and integrated view of Indian history, within which Muslims and even the British made a valuable contribution, exclusivist Hindu nationalism portrayed both the Muslims and the British as invaders and located the basis of nationality in Hindu religion and culture. Both Hindu universalism and Hindu nationalism were predicated upon the idea of Hinduism as a unity-in-diversity. However, while Hindu universalism extended this unity-in-diversity to include all religions, Hindu nationalism confined this principle to Hinduism alone in order to create a common Hindu identity transcending the diverse sectarian allegiances of Hindus. Accordingly, Hindu nationalism appealed in the course of its campaigns to characters and ideals drawn from the Hindu tradition. This was often coupled with an aggressive anti-Muslim stance. 

The career of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), one of the most prominent Hindu nationalists of his generation, exemplifies many of these tendencies. Lamenting the loss of India's ancient unity and sovereignty Tilak looked towards their restoration in a re-creation of the Hindu nation made possible by a this-worldly, socially engaged and politically active interpretation of Hinduism. The concept of Hindutva ('Hinduness') advanced by Tilak which enabled him to regard Muslims as a minority and to resist British influences, accepted the internal diversity of Hinduism while asserting a common Hindu heritage of standards and principles, notwithstanding the many different languages Hindus spoke and their far-flung geographical distribution. Unlike Hindu universalists Tilak did not allow an inclusivist approach which admitted or assimilated Muslims. On the contrary, for Tilak the internal diversity of Hinduism was contained within a clear boundary which excluded adherents of non-Indian religions. This was evident in the way he went about arousing nationalist sentiment, albeit often Maratha nationalism, which not only challenged British rule but mobilised the masses at the expense of Muslims and cross-community links. He was a sponsor and patron of the Ganesa and Sivaji festivals. The revival of the Ganesa festival dedicated to the elephant-headed son of Siva and previously celebrated by the Maratha hereditary rulers was calculated to end Hindu participation in the Muslim Muharram festival. Similarly the Sivaji festival, which focussed on the Maratha hero who fought against the Mughal forces killing their general Afzal Khan was introduced in order to promote Hindu pride and prestige. Through these and other enterprises, Lokamanya ('Revered by the people') Tilak was responsible both for radicalising the nationalist attitude towards  the British and for reinforcing the the sectarian or communalist divide within nationalism.<25>

Tilak's career was paralleled by the career of other Hindu nationalists, among them two fellow Maharashtrians, V.D. Savarkar and K.D. Hedgewar. Savarkar set out in his writings a Hindu nationalist manifesto which influenced the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ('National Union of Volunteers') founded by Hedgewar and which became the standard-bearer of Hindu nationalism.<26>


Current perceptions of 'Hinduism'

In recent times the universalist interpretation of Hinduism has been emphasised in the context of a pluralist society. The tolerance of diversity detected in such an approach has made Hinduism very attractive to a western audience more familiar with the conflicts caused by exclusivist religious traditions. In attempting to portray Hinduism sympathetically to outsiders, UK textbooks for religious education emphasise the inclusivism of Hinduism. A random but nonetheless typical example of this informs the reader:

"Hinduism is a very tolerant religion. Hindus accept
that there are many religions in the world. Each is
a different way of looking for the same God. It
doesn't matter which way you follow, as long as you
are going to the same place. ... Swami Vivekananda
summed up this message."<27>


Reactions to Ayodhya

It is precisely this presentation of Hindu universalism as Hinduism par excellence that makes Hindu nationalism appear anomalous and aberrant, as reactions to events at Ayodhya show. Ayodhya constitutes but one manifestation of Hindu nationalism among many. For instance, campaigners on behalf of low castes and women view with concern what they see as the reactionary social agenda of Hindu nationalists running counter to the constitutional commitment to equality. However, events at Ayodhya have proven the most controversial, not least because campaigners on social issues have recognised the far-reaching implications. 

During the 1980's and 1990's, riots broke out in India involving Hindus and Muslims in violent confrontation over Ayodhya. A climax was reached when Hindus demolished a mosque so that they could (re)build a temple. For Hindu nationalists, Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama, desecrated by the erection of a mosque on the orders of Babur, the first Mughal emperor.<28> The Vishwa Hindu Parshad ('World Hindu Council') has played a major role in the campaign to reclaim Ayodhya for Hindus because, in the words of Mahesh Narayan Singh, secretary of the Ramjanam Bhumi Committee of the VHP:

"Ram is the most important god in the Hindu 
faith ... And this is the very spot where he 
was born. How could we _not_ give him every 
due honor? The Indian nation must be reminded 
that its days of glory are not all in the past. 
That is why we will build a new temple. We must 
be reminded not merely with pretty words, but with 
monuments in immovable stone ... It is ... my 
religious duty to wake my countrymen up."<29> 

The religio-political nature of this campaign has enabled many Hindu nationalist movements to make common cause. For example, Lal Krishna Advani, President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party) mounted a chariot procession to Ayodhya and, although arrested before his pilgrimage could reach its destination, succeeded in increasing communal tensions.<30>

Ayodhya serves as a potent symbol of Hindu subjection to Muslim overlords and a rallying point for Hindus disillusioned with the 1947 Partition settlement, which on the basis of religion established Pakistan as the Muslim homeland, and disturbed by the existence of Muslim-based nationalism in Kashmir supported by neighbouring Pakistan. Such tensions are by no means unprecedented but, given the extraordinary predominance of the view that Hinduism is Hindu universalism, events at Ayodhya appear inexplicable as well as inexcusable. Hindu universalism has become normative and, in so far as events at Ayodhya and other manifestations of Hindu nationalism deviate from this norm, they are condemned as other than and opposed to Hinduism. Yet from a phenomenological perspective Hindu nationalism is Hindu - even if it is characteristic of Hindu universalist propaganda and polemic to deny this fact.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the present paper is arguing that Hindu universalism and Hindu nationalism in their current forms are  contemporary constructions of Hindu identity. Both have roots in the Hindu tradition and have developed in response to a variety of stimuli, many of which they have in common. Despite their seeming opposition, Hindu universalism and Hindu nationalism both see Hinduism as a unity-in-diversity. Hindu universalism reads itself back into the tradition by adducing specific scriptural passages <31> and appropriating them as precursors of its pan-religious vision. However, this process necessarily involves an extrapolation from texts which make no mention of non-Hindu worldviews. It therefore raises the question as to whether there are limits to inclusivism, as Hindu nationalism assumes.

What is more, the claims of openness made by Hindu universalism have been shown to be susceptible to criticism, not least the claim that by virtue of the recognition of the truth and validity of all religions, Hindu universalism is the most true and valid understanding of religion. This paper urges the recognition that religious traditions are subject to growth and development as multi-faceted entities which do not permit of a simple single characterisation such as Hindu universalism entails.


NOTES
1. The subject of this article was suggested by reading a provocative collection of essays. See Ainslie T. Embree, Utopias in Conflict: Religion and Nationalism in Modern India, Berkeley, University of California Press 1990.

2. Such terms have been used elswhere by many writers on religious pluralism, with however slightly different definitions from those which follow. See for example Griffiths, P. Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes, New York, Orbis, 1990.

3. Alladi Mahadeva Sastry (transl), The Bhagavad-Gita with the Commentary of Sri Sankaracharya, Madras, Samata Books 1991, 
pp 5-6.

4. Cf 'The view of Jaimini and Kumarila (acceptable to all authorities such as Sankara and Ramanuja) that the Vedic faith is exclusive, shows that Hinduism is as exclusive as the Semitic faiths and brooks no rivals' K. Satchidananda Murty, Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedanta, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass 1974, p 219.

5. See Freda Matchett, 'The teaching of Ramakrishna in relation to the Hindu tradition and as interpreted by Vivekananda', Religion 11 (April 1981), pp 171-184.

6. Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol 4, Mayavati Memorial Edition, Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama 1989, p 187.

7. Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol 1, Mayavati Memorial Edition, Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama 1986, pp 331-332.

8. Ibid., p 390.

9. Glyn Richards, The Philosophy of Gandhi, London, Curzon Press 1982, pp 22-24. 

10. M. K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60. 

11. Ibid., p 59.

12. This appreciation of Gandhi's openness to other religious traditions owes something to a recent paper by Professor F. Whaling 'Gandhi and Religious Pluralism' presented at the conference on 'Gandhi's Conception of a New Society', Oxford, 1995.

13. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought, Second Edition, London, Oxford University Press 1940, p 307.

14. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life, London, George Allen & Unwin 1927, pp 58-59.

15. Glyn Richards, 'Gandhi's Concept of Truth and the Advaita Tradition', Religious Studies 22 (1986), pp 1-14; Glyn Richards, Philosophy, pp 21, 24.

16. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life, pp 31-32; Robert N. Minor, 'Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on the Nature of "Hindu" Tolerance' p 286, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 1:2 (June 1982), pp 275-290.

17. Ninian Smart, 'Truth and Religions' p 294, in Steven M. Cahn & David Shatz (eds), Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, New York, Oxford University Press 1982, pp 291-300. 

18. For example, Hindus petition different Gods/Goddesses in a divine hierarchy for different purposes; devotees of one God/Goddess do not deny the existence of other divinities but regard them as subordinate to their God/Goddess etc.. 

19. Cf 'Indian thought explicitly rejects the idea that all people can have the same perception of truth, the same understanding of reality. It seems obvious to Indian civilization that all of us do not have the same capacity for mental, moral, spiritual, or physical achievement. Here the contrast with Islam and Christianity, two religious ideologies that came into contact with Hinduism, is complete. Both these religions have at the heart of their systems  an obligation to assert that all humans can share in the same vision of truth. Before this assertion Hinduism is both skeptical and affronted' Embree, p 30. It should be added, though, that more liberal interpretations of Christianity, if not also Islam, must qualify these statements.

20. Cf. 'The emphasis on Hinduism and Indian society's tolerance of other religions and other systems of thought is ... an essential component of Indian nationalist ideology.' ibid., p 23.

21. Ibid., p 89.


22. Ainslie T. Embree, The Hindu Tradition: Readings in Oriental Thought, New York. Vintage Books 1972, pp 218-219.


23. Diana L. Eck, Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India, Second Edition, Chambersburg, Anima Books 1985, pp 65-68.


24. Wendy Doniger with Brian K. Smith, The Laws of Manu, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books 1991, pp 128, 131, 136. 


25. See, for example, Charles H. Heimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform, Princeton, Princeton University Press 1964, var refs.


26. Daniel Gold, 'Organized Hinduisms: From Vedic Truth to Hindu Nation' pp.534,540,546-547 in Martin E Marty and R Scott Appleby (eds) Fundamentalisms Observed, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1991, pp.531-593.

27. L. Aylett, The Hindu Experience, London, Hodder & Stoughton 1992, p 44.

28. For a brief discussion of this dispute, see, for example, Ian A. Talbot, 'Politics and Religion in Contemporary India' pp 143-144, in George Moyser (ed), Politics and Religion in the Modern World, London, Routledge 1991, pp 135-161. The crisis at Ayodhya has given rise to a diverse and rapidly expanding scholarly literature. For a historical and literary perspective see Sheldon Pollock 'Ramayana and Political Imagination in India' in The Journal of Asian Studies, 52:2 (May 1993), pp.261-297. See also Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, 'Ayodhya and the Hindu Resurgence' in Religion 24:1 (1994), pp.73-76, with the argument of which the authors are largely in agreement.

29. Jonah Blank, Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God, London, Simon & Schuster, 1994, pp.14-16.

30. Mark Juergensmeyer, 'The Rise of Hindu Nationalism' pp.241-242 in Ninian Smart and Shivesh Thakur (eds), Ethical and Political Dilemmas of Modern India, Basingstoke, Macmillan 1993, pp.235-247

31. A favourite proof text is Rg Veda 1.164.46 which teaches that the one God is called by many names, Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc.

END