This is with reference to Venkitash's reply to anshuman's post.

 

I do not usually spend time replying to such posts but decided to make an exception as venkitesh's post reveals a total misunderstanding of what constitutes Indian civilisation.  Yes, India was and is a plural society, yes, many groups like Parsis and Tebetans found refuge here. But we must be alert to point out that using India and Hindu interchangeably is not acceptable anymore. While in the past we know that Hindu had only a geographic meaning, now  - in the colonial and post-colonial era - it is used in several other contexts and has several other meanings. IT is now mainly used as a term for the Vedic religion propagated by Sankara, the Brahmin missionary who walked all over India  in the second half of the first millennium, to spread his version of his faith, in a land mass which had Jainism, Buddhism, and any number of indigenous belief systems. It is interesting how Buddhism became almost extinct where it arose, but found deep roots in other Asian societies where it still flourishes in various forms, manily after Shankara succeeded in convincing the local kings about the superiority of his philosophical and political tenets. Jainism survives, but with the loss of most of its basadis, which were turned into "Hindu" temples.   

 

Hence to term the ancient Indian civilisation with rich and ancient pacifist religious traditions (pre-Christian era) of Buddhism, Jainism, and numerous local traditions by the term Hindu is to totally stretch the historical facts wherethey in fact do not go. Actually it is the pacific and egalitarian nature of these indigenous faith systems that is the core of the Indian civilisation, rather than the superimposed Vedic religion (with its divisive hierachies).

 

Cynthia Stephen

 

    

 

Cynthia Stephen
Independent Researcher and writer
Bangalore, India