Hinduism is a way of life: Origin and growth
(I have used the word shudra in this article to describe a caste in Hinduism. While Hinduism believed that they were low caste, I have no such belief. I use the word only to identify a set of people)
In the earlier posts we have seen that Hinduism is a complex phenomenon and that a majority of India’s “Hindu” tribal populations were not really Hindu till recently.
When we want to examine the origin and growth of Hinduism, specifically historical timelines, we again run into problems because it has no “founder “or prophet. So historian and scholars use the dates of creation of Hinduism’s sacred texts to arrive at the timelines. While there is considerable debate and disagreement among scholars on the exact dates, there is a wide consensus that many of the gods and rituals of present day Hinduism were in evidence by 1000 to 700 BC. There is also an agreement that the area initially covered by people of Hindu faith ranged from the west to present day Pakistan to east till the eastern edge of Bihar. But who were the people who founded Vedic Hinduism and where did they come from? And, during the early days of Hinduism were there people in India who did not follow Hinduism but some other religion.
Hinduism even as known today shares a lot of features with the Zoroastrian religion (which is the religion of Parsis in India). Names of gods, the importance of fire in rituals and even the caste system is common. In addition the principal language of Vedic Hinduism, Sanskrit, has many similarities with the classical language of Zoroastrianism, i.e. the Avestan. (see this interesting link http://www.ancientscripts.com/avestan.html)
Using these similarities , historians have generally agreed that the people who originally developed Vedic Hinduism were not the oldest inhabitants of India. Strong similarities with the ancient religions and languages of Iran and Central Asia compel us to the conclusion that the founders of Vedic Hinduism came from those regions and when the came they carried some of the initial ideas of Hinduism, including the caste system. These ideas were to later develop into Hinduism in India and Zoroastrianism in Iran.
The next logical question is therefore who lived in India BEFORE the Iranians / Central Asian came ? One obvious answer is the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) but it is not a complete answer, because the IVC does not have any sites/ evidence to the east of Rajasthan or to the west of Sindh. It is entirely absent in present day UP, Bihar and Bengal, MP.
Another, less palatable but more probable part of the answer is that it was the ancestors of present day tribals who were the original inhabitants of India. The Vedic Hindus seemed to have done 2 things
• They forced the indigenous people/ tribals to move deeper into the jungles and hills where they remained for the next nearly 3000 years ..i.e. till now as we see in central India. As I have mentioned in an earlier post the tribals in Central India even today do not follow traditional Hinduism.
• Some tribals were “captured” and forced to become shudras in the Vedic Hinduism caste system
Taken together these two statements are very controversial and contentious , but I believe them to be true both from evidence as well as logic.
In the form of evidence we only have to observe the people of today in the shudra caste vs. the other castes. There is a distinct difference in the physiognomy. One set is noticeably darker skinned and has “tribal” facial features than the other. (To be noted I am not for or against a particular skin colour. I am not advocating that fairer skin is better than darker or vice versa).
On the logic side, consider this> The percentage of backward castes/ tribals in Hinduism today is more than 60 percent. Now look back 3000 years. A new religion, Hinduism, is coming in. Would anyone willingly join the religion as a shudra , the lowest strata ? So there is compelling logic to believe that the founders of Vedic Hinduism (often referred as Aryans) forced the indigenous people into joining Hinduism as shudras. While it may sound strange in the context of Hinduism, enslaving of vanquished local people has been seen time and again in history. Vedic Hinduism did more or less the same, except that instead of calling them slaves, they called them shudra.
An associated thought is that not ALL the local people were relegated to shudra status. Either initially or over a period of time some communities moved into other castes. The important point to note here is that it was not individuals who could break out of the caste system, though entire communities could.
Many Hindus today believe that the caste system was a division of labour and a person could move to a higher caste depending on his merit. This alas is not borne out by facts. Or one would have to assume that Indian/ Hindu society in the ancient times was so punitive that it condemned 60% of its people to the lowest strata.
A question will be asked..with its pernicious caste system, how did Hinduism spread so much in India? The answer is simple. It is like launching a new toothpaste in today’s market. The consumption will spread quickly if there is no / very little competition and if the promotional effort is strong. This happened with Hinduism 3000 years ago. There was no competing organized religion and Vedic Hindus were a more organized community with better resources than the local population.
In summary, what is important to note is
• The founders of Vedic Hinduism were not the original inhabitants of the Indo Gangetic plain.
• Vedic Hinduism forced the locals to jungles or captured them as shudras.
• Caste was always determined by birth and not merit.
• The claims made by many Hindus today that Hinduism is the only religion which has not converted people, are false. Hinduism has definitely converted people. The difference is that the people who were converted followed a religion or set of beliefs which did not have a name and about which very little is known today
Many people who read this might label me an anti-Hindu. Nothing is further from the truth. What i have attempted to do, is to answer for myself some of the uncomfortable questions regarding Hinduism using knowledge available in the public domain. Unfortunately, the truth can sometimes be bitter.
I would welcome any differing opinions /comments provided they are backed by logic and fact.
(I have used the word shudra in this article to describe a caste in Hinduism. While Hinduism believed that they were low caste, I have no such belief. I use the word only to identify a set of people)
In the earlier posts we have seen that Hinduism is a complex phenomenon and that a majority of India’s “Hindu” tribal populations were not really Hindu till recently.
When we want to examine the origin and growth of Hinduism, specifically historical timelines, we again run into problems because it has no “founder “or prophet. So historian and scholars use the dates of creation of Hinduism’s sacred texts to arrive at the timelines. While there is considerable debate and disagreement among scholars on the exact dates, there is a wide consensus that many of the gods and rituals of present day Hinduism were in evidence by 1000 to 700 BC. There is also an agreement that the area initially covered by people of Hindu faith ranged from the west to present day Pakistan to east till the eastern edge of Bihar. But who were the people who founded Vedic Hinduism and where did they come from? And, during the early days of Hinduism were there people in India who did not follow Hinduism but some other religion.
Hinduism even as known today shares a lot of features with the Zoroastrian religion (which is the religion of Parsis in India). Names of gods, the importance of fire in rituals and even the caste system is common. In addition the principal language of Vedic Hinduism, Sanskrit, has many similarities with the classical language of Zoroastrianism, i.e. the Avestan. (see this interesting link http://www.ancientscripts.com/avestan.html)
Using these similarities , historians have generally agreed that the people who originally developed Vedic Hinduism were not the oldest inhabitants of India. Strong similarities with the ancient religions and languages of Iran and Central Asia compel us to the conclusion that the founders of Vedic Hinduism came from those regions and when the came they carried some of the initial ideas of Hinduism, including the caste system. These ideas were to later develop into Hinduism in India and Zoroastrianism in Iran.
The next logical question is therefore who lived in India BEFORE the Iranians / Central Asian came ? One obvious answer is the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) but it is not a complete answer, because the IVC does not have any sites/ evidence to the east of Rajasthan or to the west of Sindh. It is entirely absent in present day UP, Bihar and Bengal, MP.
Another, less palatable but more probable part of the answer is that it was the ancestors of present day tribals who were the original inhabitants of India. The Vedic Hindus seemed to have done 2 things
• They forced the indigenous people/ tribals to move deeper into the jungles and hills where they remained for the next nearly 3000 years ..i.e. till now as we see in central India. As I have mentioned in an earlier post the tribals in Central India even today do not follow traditional Hinduism.
• Some tribals were “captured” and forced to become shudras in the Vedic Hinduism caste system
Taken together these two statements are very controversial and contentious , but I believe them to be true both from evidence as well as logic.
In the form of evidence we only have to observe the people of today in the shudra caste vs. the other castes. There is a distinct difference in the physiognomy. One set is noticeably darker skinned and has “tribal” facial features than the other. (To be noted I am not for or against a particular skin colour. I am not advocating that fairer skin is better than darker or vice versa).
On the logic side, consider this> The percentage of backward castes/ tribals in Hinduism today is more than 60 percent. Now look back 3000 years. A new religion, Hinduism, is coming in. Would anyone willingly join the religion as a shudra , the lowest strata ? So there is compelling logic to believe that the founders of Vedic Hinduism (often referred as Aryans) forced the indigenous people into joining Hinduism as shudras. While it may sound strange in the context of Hinduism, enslaving of vanquished local people has been seen time and again in history. Vedic Hinduism did more or less the same, except that instead of calling them slaves, they called them shudra.
An associated thought is that not ALL the local people were relegated to shudra status. Either initially or over a period of time some communities moved into other castes. The important point to note here is that it was not individuals who could break out of the caste system, though entire communities could.
Many Hindus today believe that the caste system was a division of labour and a person could move to a higher caste depending on his merit. This alas is not borne out by facts. Or one would have to assume that Indian/ Hindu society in the ancient times was so punitive that it condemned 60% of its people to the lowest strata.
A question will be asked..with its pernicious caste system, how did Hinduism spread so much in India? The answer is simple. It is like launching a new toothpaste in today’s market. The consumption will spread quickly if there is no / very little competition and if the promotional effort is strong. This happened with Hinduism 3000 years ago. There was no competing organized religion and Vedic Hindus were a more organized community with better resources than the local population.
In summary, what is important to note is
• The founders of Vedic Hinduism were not the original inhabitants of the Indo Gangetic plain.
• Vedic Hinduism forced the locals to jungles or captured them as shudras.
• Caste was always determined by birth and not merit.
• The claims made by many Hindus today that Hinduism is the only religion which has not converted people, are false. Hinduism has definitely converted people. The difference is that the people who were converted followed a religion or set of beliefs which did not have a name and about which very little is known today
Many people who read this might label me an anti-Hindu. Nothing is further from the truth. What i have attempted to do, is to answer for myself some of the uncomfortable questions regarding Hinduism using knowledge available in the public domain. Unfortunately, the truth can sometimes be bitter.
I would welcome any differing opinions /comments provided they are backed by logic and fact.
