I co-authored an article with two other members of Lanka Solidarity for Himal Southasian’s special December issue on diasporas. You can find it on the Himal site here: Sri Lanka’s alternatives abroad
We believe members of Sri Lankan diasporas with alternative politics must reassert their claims to space in the conversation about Sri Lanka’s future. For us, this article was one step toward that. We look forward to your feedback, ideas, and yes, arguments–
Cross-posting it here.
Sri Lanka’s alternatives abroad
Are the island’s diasporas to be seen as a source of remittance, a threat, or legitimate sites for political engagement and critique?
By: Kitana Ananda, V V Ganeshananthan & Ashwini Vasanthakumar
There is no such thing as ‘the Sri Lankan diaspora’. Sri Lankan communities exist in the plural. And yet, nearly thirty years of conflict have rendered a nation with multiple minority communities and religions as though it has only two groups. If you generalise about what you read at all (and most people do), you are likely to believe that Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority are pitted against each other, not only inside the country but in diasporas all over the world.
While conflict and geographic dispersal present real challenges to Sri Lankan diasporas, this image of Sinhalese versus Tamil is far from the whole truth. Although the war ended with a decisive victory by government security forces over the LTTE in 2009, the reductive image remains: Sri Lanka, a nation with Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher communities, rarely appears that way. The media is not the only culprit. In the wake of that resounding military victory, both the Sri Lankan government and its critics have failed to engage Sri Lankan diasporas and to understand their complexity. Indeed, their collective actions have excluded diasporic populations.Lankan diaspora histories often begin with 1983, when anti-Tamil violence and the rise of Tamil militancy led to the civil war that displaced hundreds of thousands of Tamils from the island. In fact, a longer and more complicated history of migration is responsible for today’s Lankan diasporas. During the 1930s and 1940s, English-speaking upper-caste Ceylonese who worked in the British Empire’s civil service formed diasporic settlements from Burma to Malaya.
After independence in 1948, new legislation disenfranchised Tamils of Indian origin, who had been brought in to work on colonial plantations during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many members of that community were subsequently repatriated to India. An attempt to nationalise government administration with the 1956 Official Language Act–popularly dubbed ‘Sinhala Only’–led to the migration of Ceylonese professionals of all communities who were not proficient in Sinhala. Large numbers of Burghers, the community of mixed Sri Lankan and European descent, migrated to Britain, Canada and Australia; Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim professionals followed, accompanied by their families.
In these transitional decades, there was no such thing as a Tamil or Sinhalese diaspora; but by the late 1970s this was no longer the case, as factionalism escalated within the country. Three decades of state and economic restructuring had not created a united ‘Sri Lankan’ nation, and tensions mounted between a Sinhalese-dominated government and Tamil political parties. Disaffection with the political status quo gave rise to a 1971 insurrection among predominantly rural Sinhalese youths in the south, and growing militancy among Tamil youths in the north and east by the latter part of the decade. University admissions quotas, among other policies, effectively reduced opportunities for middle-class Tamil students and young professionals, who began to seek employment abroad.
Diasporas today
In July 1983, nearly 3,000 people were killed and thousands more displaced over five days of government-sponsored anti-Tamil violence, creating a new wave of migrants. The scale of destruction and spectacular displays of enmity spurred sympathetic Western governments to create special categories for refugee resettlement. As the country descended from ethnic conflict into full-scale war between the government and Tamil militant groups, the tide of migration continued. In the 1980s, as the LTTE rose to supremacy by brutally eliminating other Tamil militant groups, non-LTTE Tamil militants and their families emigrated. Internally, too, the country saw mass displacement of Muslims and Tamils.
The war with the state intensified through the mid-1980s and 1990s, again prompting hundreds of thousands of Tamils to depart. By some estimates, nearly 900,000–one in three–Tamils from Sri Lanka today live abroad, hailing predominantly from the country’s north and, to a lesser extent, the east. India was often their first stop and, for some, their final destination. Others headed to Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, each of which offered the possibility of citizenship. Others remain refugees in India, Southeast Asia and Europe. As the war escalated, the pro-LTTE section of the diaspora became famously militant, pouring money into the Tigers’ movement, while their relatives and friends back home lost children, homes and livelihoods. The Tigers even developed an overseas wing, which managed its propaganda so successfully that other sections of the Tamil diaspora were virtually erased from the public sphere.
Admittedly, the largest Sri Lankan diaspora is a Tamil one, which has commanded considerable attention as a result of post-1983 migration, the war, and visible propaganda and financial support for the LTTE among some of its sections. Some use Sri Lankan diaspora and Tamil diaspora interchangeably, but Sinhalese and Muslim Sri Lankans have also gone to other shores amid political crises and economic uncertainty, and they continue to emigrate, predominantly as temporary migrant workers to West Asia. Sizeable and diverse Sinhalese diaspora communities have formed among workers in Italy, professionals in the United States, and several generations of migrants to the United Kingdom and Canada.
Today, some Sinhalese (and, to a lesser extent, Muslim) groups maintain ties with each other and with Sri Lanka through various associations. For some organisations, ‘Sri Lanka’ becomes a proxy for displays of Sinhalese nationalism that make critiques of the Sri Lankan government difficult. Similarly, prominent diasporic Tamil organisations have long showcased arguments for separatism, sometimes accompanied by endorsements of the LTTE. Those who do not agree with these respective lines face isolation from their own ethnic communities.
In May 2009, the war’s end saw the differing trajectories of these diasporas converge in tense confrontations in Canada, the UK, Australia and elsewhere. Thousands of Tamils around the world protested the war and the suffering it imposed. Those waving LTTE flags monopolised media attention, sidelining the message of ‘peace through negotiations’ emanating from other quarters. In response, smaller Sri Lankan groups with close connections to embassies and missions abroad organised counter-demonstrations. Their predominantly Sinhalese ranks also included anti-LTTE Tamils who cheered the Tigers’ defeat and hailed the soldiers who ended the war through military action.
Just remittances, please
Over the course of the war, the visibility of dominant sections of the Tamil diaspora–and their stunning vocal and financial support for the Tamil Tigers–has helped the Sri Lankan government to project the entire group as a terrorist threat. Post-war, the authorities’ attempts to derail a monolithic ‘Tamil diaspora’ have transformed into interest in that diaspora’s sizable collective wallet. In anticipation of a post-war Lanka, the government handpicked leaders and activists of the Tamil diaspora to attend a March 2009 conference in Colombo. At the meeting, dubbed the Sri Lankan Diaspora Dialogue, many of the invitees expressed dismay with the government’s heavy-handed agenda. Even as the government invited some Tamils to return to the island, it has made the following conflicting claims: The LTTE has been completely decimated; the LTTE could re-emerge at any time, and has powerful supporters abroad; the diaspora is invited to engage with us financially; we are no longer a colony, and those who criticise us from abroad have the mindset of colonisers (or support the LTTE).
The LTTE’s claim to be Tamils’ ‘sole representative’–and its well-known allies abroad–is convenient for the government, which wants remittances, not opinions. If it links all its overseas critics to the Tigers, it can dismiss their concerns. As pro-LTTE activists in the diaspora say they will continue to fight for Eelam from abroad (the most visible iteration being the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, formed in May following a diaspora-wide election), their statements fuel Colombo’s ire. In retaliation, the government has announced local and international campaigns to gather intelligence, seize assets and shut down the LTTE’s remaining international network. In such a climate of suspicion, the government has been quick to conflate any criticism with support for the LTTE, leaving no room for serious diasporic engagement with the state.
On the other hand, the government does recognise diasporas’ economic and political power, as well as the effectiveness of pro-LTTE activists overseas who have made it difficult for their critics to speak out. Indeed, since the Diaspora Dialogue, Colombo has learned much from the LTTE’s hegemony in diaspora communities. The government sidesteps political criticism by appealing to the desire of many to aid the war-torn regions of north and east Sri Lanka. To initiate development projects in these areas, it turns to ex-members of the Tigers. Former Tiger arms procurer and international-affairs representative Kumaran Pathmanathan now sits under house arrest in Colombo, dispensing advice to the government; his own public rehabilitation was announced with the launch of the North-East Rehabilitation Development Organization, for which he claimed ‘the Tamil diaspora’ was ready to work with the president. In the Eastern province, former Tigers and current government officials Pillayan and Karuna have their names bandied about as evidence of state engagement with minorities.
The power of foreign exchange as a potent resource for post-war reconstruction is not limited to the Tamil diasporas alone. With the war’s end, Sri Lankan embassies have raised funds (more than USD 690,000 to date), mainly from Sinhalese entrepreneurs and organisations, for Api wenuwen api (Be together for all), a Ministry of Defence campaign to build 50,000 houses for soldiers. Opposition groups also mobilise Sinhalese diaspora communities for their own ends. For example, in September, Sinhalese workers in Italy protested the Colombo government’s continued detention of the former head of the Sri Lankan armed forces, Sarath Fonseka.
The government’s latest statements continue to entreat ‘the Sri Lankan diaspora’ to participate in economic development. At the Asia Security Summit in August 2010, Minister of External Affairs G L Peiris said, ‘Our message to the diaspora in the Western world and elsewhere is that they have a dynamic role to play; we do not want them to distance themselves from the exciting developments which are taking place in Sri Lanka today.’ Such pronouncements are made even as the government cracks down on dissent and political opposition within Sri Lanka, and invokes the spectre of threats to national security to silence activists abroad. Peiris, a chief negotiator during the Oslo peace process, has recently argued that earlier talks and attempts at political reform failed due to a lack of consensus among dominant political interests. This top-down approach has allowed generations of Sri Lankan politicians to suppress debate and dissent while claiming to remain committed to political reform, and the same technique is now being used to mobilise the diaspora communities’ economic power.
This dual approach to (particularly) Tamil diaspora communities dismisses legitimate grievances and criticisms. Simultaneously, it invites potential investors to capitalise on the war’s end and selectively wields former LTTE leaders to collect economic contributions from the former. This not only privileges the economically secure and undermines the political engagement of diaspora communities in general, but also silences the many moderates–in-country and abroad –who did not provide unqualified support to the narrow agendas of successive governments or the LTTE. Such groups could not publicly criticise these agendas before, nor are they able to do so now. Instead, they remain sceptical and watchful of the many projects undertaken in their name.
Discounting nationalism
The government’s dismissal of the Tamil diaspora as being little more than LTTE henchmen is not surprising. It is less encouraging, however, when the same attitude is revealed in progressives’ discussions of, and engagement with, the diaspora. The left has largely disengaged from diasporic politics, preferring to direct its limited energies to the battles to be waged in-country. But this myopia prevents engagement with the considerable resources of moderates within the diaspora.
During the war, progressives from all communities attempted to create space within the diaspora from which exclusivist nationalism could be challenged. Emphasising marginalised histories to refute nationalist narratives, these activists deployed the language of human rights and political pluralism. But they largely engaged with diasporic politics because of its importance to politics in Sri Lanka. Now, in the aftermath of the Tigers’ defeat, this effort has atrophied. And by equating the Tigers’ totalitarian politics with Tamil nationalism and the government’s brutal tactics with Sinhalese nationalism, the left only reaffirms these actors’ respective claims to represent Sinhalese and Tamil peoples.
This cedes important ideological and political ground. Furthermore, by depicting nationalism as static, regressive and exclusivist, the left fails to appreciate the varieties of nationalism, its potential as a source of solidarity, and its importance in forging and transforming identities. Indeed, national identity is what ties those in the diaspora–including progressives who would rather identify themselves as expatriate or exile–to politics in Sri Lanka. But from the diaspora various nationalisms can also emerge, where the multiple identities and affiliations of those in the diaspora can fruitfully inform and expand nationalist politics in Sri Lanka. Many Tamils were privately critical of the LTTE’s tactics; many Sinhalese were critical of the state’s growing authoritarianism. Clearly, between the poles there is space for common ground.
Progressives fashion themselves as exiles who, after years in the ideological hinterlands of the diaspora, can return to Sri Lanka and resume agitating for the transformations they failed to secure thirty years ago–as though those intervening decades did not happen. What this has meant among many leftists in exile is supporting a project of authentic nationalism–for some ethnic, for others, multi-ethnic–from abroad, without engaging the communities living in their midst.
Responsible resource
The Colombo government will not successfully engage diaspora communities in large-scale reconstruction if it continues to approach them in the same manner as it did throughout the war. Without a political process aimed at ending minority grievances on the island, many Tamil expatriates will continue to view the government’s embrace with scepticism. More fundamentally, diasporas should not be engaged only because they are deemed useful to ‘real’ Sri Lankan political actors engaged in the serious business of realpolitik. Rather, diasporas should be recognised as legitimate arenas of Sri Lankan politics. To claim otherwise is to reward regimes that neutralise political opposition and silence dissidents by expelling them.
For their part, members of Sri Lanka’s diasporas need to begin a process of critical reflection regarding the last thirty years of war, something that was discouraged amidst calls for solidarity. Instead of forgetting the so-called ‘tragic decades of nationalism’, communities across the political spectrum need to consider their complicity in its crimes, their complacency in the face of its manifest excesses, and their failures in advancing compelling alternatives. Such efforts might be most effective in Sri Lanka, and have begun in various fora there; but, given the significance of the diaspora in Sri Lankan politics and the relatively greater freedoms enjoyed outside Sri Lanka, it is imperative that these conversations happen outside too, and happen publicly.
This political reflection is especially important as the Sri Lankan government woos overseas communities for economic contributions, and contributions alone. Many are understandably excited by Sri Lanka’s post-war economic prospects. And in some respects, economic involvement can be more tempting than political engagement: its requirements are more discrete, its rewards more apparent, and it can look refreshingly (if deceptively) apolitical. In reality, of course, economic development in post-conflict Sri Lanka is subject to intense contestation, with economic fortunes inevitably linked to political positioning (see Himal Oct-Nov, ‘Capitalism contradictions’). Alternatively, the economic clout of responsible diasporic investors can ensure that the war and its bloody aftermath do not get airbrushed away, as in the glossy picture the government and its uncritical allies are so eager to promote.
The diaspora can also promote reconciliation by mirroring it abroad. In the absence of reliable media coverage from Sri Lanka, youth overseas have been too easily radicalised by incomplete histories and half-truths. This can only be countered by collective action to share stories and political pasts. As those private conversations become public, salient criticisms can gain traction through coalitions of progressive voices. Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher activists forming alliances overseas can become a powerful medium for critique and change. Those critical of diasporic extremists have rightfully called for grounding, and for true accountability to those on the ground in Sri Lanka. With action comes responsibility: if we want to work within Sri Lanka, we must listen to those who live there. Sinhalese and Tamil activists abroad must note that certain populations marginalised inside Sri Lanka–for example, Muslims, Burghers and Up-country Tamils–are correspondingly underrepresented in the diaspora. Their interests are Sri Lanka’s interests, and critique of the country must consider and engage them.
Sri Lankan diasporas are an easy target. They are easily ridiculed, their most vocal members often spouting opinions that seem ignorant. Their memories of grievance and grief are embarrassingly fresh, their suggestions oversimplified and trite, their language loaded. Their physical absence from Sri Lanka seems to preclude their involvement in its political life. Their hyphenated identities and modified accents undermine their authenticity. They are not really Sri Lankan–that is, at least, when they do not serve the interests of the ‘authentic’ political actors in Sri Lanka. But they are also an unrivalled resource, with legitimate claims to space in Sri Lankan politics, and filial and financial ties to the country. They genuinely care about Sri Lanka and, in a world with increasingly porous borders, they have every right to do so. Their transnational politics is a product of the war, and they remain connected to Sri Lanka, even though their homes are abroad. Can the country afford–from a practical or moral standpoint–to turn its back on a million people who could contribute to its future?
“That is a bullshit demand since Hinduism is not the original religion of desis. The Indus Valley civilization predates Vedic Hinduism by a millenium. The authentic desi religion is shramanism/yoga/meditation/pantheism which finds expression in Buddhism, Jainism, Sufism, Advaita etc, not in casteism, Vedic sacrifices etc which define mainstream Hinduism.”
Hinduism is an umbrella term for all the pre-Abrahamic wisdom traditions of South Asia that have the concept of an eternal atma, soul (going both forward AND backward in space/time) in common.
Yoga and Adwaita Vedanta most certainly fall under that umbrella.
Some argue that Buddhism and Jainism do as well, won’t get into that here, it’s not my “fight” as they say.
Maryam 2 Ashoka,
You must be new here. “Ashoka” is actually “Prema”, a longtime Sepia Mutiny commentator who has an unshakable hatred for anything related to Hinduism. You won’t get very far arguing with her.
As for her claim that Yoga and Advaita actually came from Buddhism… One of the main principles of Buddhism is “anatta”, which states that there is no eternally-existing soul that survives after death. This flies directly in the face of Advaita Vedanta and Yogic Philosophy, both of which accept the existence of an Atman.
Hello Zachary,
I’m afraid I’m going to have to say incorrect again.
“The “converted Hindu” narrative reduces the story of Pakistan to a one-dimensional theme when that’s not the case at all. It is one variant but often not the determining one. The Indus wasn’t even Hindu at the time of Islamic invasions but Buddhist and Zoroastrians.”
The notion that the entire indus valley was a disconnected political unit from the rest of India (as is often made, though not necessarily by you) is rather silly, since the arab attempt to use sindh as a springboard into the rest of india failed and invasions defeated and sent back across the Indus. In fact, even the later sindhi emirs paid tribute and homage to the Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas of middle and southern India. So in our calls to nuance, we must recognize that there is even more nuance. There certainly was a zoroastrian minority as well, no doubt on account of the persian nobles and refugees from the then freshly conquered Sassanid empire. But whatever the ratio, the hindu variant in the IV’s religious mix was not an insignificant one.
The reality is that a number of invasions were defeated by India as well (seleucid, hun, arab, mongol, among others). Even Ghori was defeated the first time and had to break the peace treaty he made during the day to surprise attack Prithviraj’s camp at night in order to defeat him. And Peshawar (and much of Khyber-Pakthunkhwa) was taken away from raiding pashtuns by the Sikh Kingdom of Ranjit Singh. As such, we should be wary of reliance on colonial (or politically expedient narratives).
Anyhow, just wanted to clear that up, especially since there appears to be no interest in the main topic of this post from lankan commentators. alas…
Satya thank you for your comments. I believe as well that the Sri Lanka topic has been hijacked to Indo-Pak. I read your points with interest; I always believed Sindh was Buddhist majority at the time of Muhammad Bin Qasim. Also Satya the Indus has formed a distinct entity from time to time and that does trace down to geological factors. The Sindh and Western Punjab (note “Western”) were the tribal savage areas of Hindustan. It was the Mughal invasion (Islamicate culture) and more importantly British irrigation engineering that pacified them. I think the argument of the Indus of having no separate identity is as ridiculous and insulting as the one that there was no relations with the rest of the Subcontinent. The earlier theory is nothing more than undisguised Akhund Bharat. I’m not disassociating the Indus from “Hinduism” but because the terminology is so misleading, it does not lend to an easy analysis. If Hinduism is a shorthand to anything non-Abrahamic then of course however traditional Vedic Hinduism itself is an extremely tradition arguably leant some coherence by the presence of Abrahamic and other “alient” faiths.
Also Satya you use the term “India” as though it were a political organised and self-aware entity. The fact is that nationalism, regionalism and other such ideologies are as much “colonial” or politically “expedient narratives” as the invasion theory of India. Also I’m sure that there is some truth to the legends of past (re Dwarka) and that most probably there was a Saraswat that ran parrallel to the Indus and that drying up caused the settlement of the Ganges. Nevertheless the Indus Valley has often been the route for alien, foreign and predatory influences into India; the other passageway was the eastern reaches of the Bengal and the greater NorthEast, which I need to know more about. Your topic of radicalisation bears one very important note; the presence of oil in the Middle East (particularly Saudi Arabia) is a steroid shot to Islam. Fanaticism breaks down under economic pressure however its kept afloat by the incredible funds that originate from Saudi (of course not all of it is bad; our Arab brothers have been extremely important allies in Pakistan’s rapid economic development and our diaspora); no where is that seen more heinously than in our own Sindhi heartland where Madrassas multiply and if unchecked will swamp the original culture.
Also Satya I was thinking about your earlier post on relations. I wanted to ask what your thoughts were on the proposed plans to fence off Bangladesh. I was just sent this paper by a Soas Professor and I quote the introductory passages:
“The partition of Bengal and the intensification of Hindu-Muslim animosity spurred India to build the longest fence in the world around Bangladesh to prevent ‘Bangladeshi infiltration’ into India. At the same time, India desperately wants transit routes through Bangladesh to access its North-East. One implication of our analysis and the history of nationalism in Bangladesh is that the concession of Indian rights to travel through a fenced-in Bangladesh while Bangladeshis remain subject to strict Indian immigration controls is exactly the type of asymmetry in rights that resulted in significant nationalist reactions in the past.”
I was reading this and thought of our earlier dialogue.
http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/users/mk17/Docs/Bangladesh_paper.pdf
“Also Satya I was thinking about your earlier post on relations. I wanted to ask what your thoughts were on the proposed plans to fence off Bangladesh. I was just sent this paper by a Soas Professor and I quote the introductory passages:
“The partition of Bengal and the intensification of Hindu-Muslim animosity spurred India to build the longest fence in the world around Bangladesh to prevent ‘Bangladeshi infiltration’ into India. At the same time, India desperately wants transit routes through Bangladesh to access its North-East. One implication of our analysis and the history of nationalism in Bangladesh is that the concession of Indian rights to travel through a fenced-in Bangladesh while Bangladeshis remain subject to strict Indian immigration controls is exactly the type of asymmetry in rights that resulted in significant nationalist reactions in the past.”
I’m not Satya, but I have an opinion.
When I was a child I thought East Pakistan and West Pakistan were connected to each other geographically. Then I looked at a map and saw Bangladesh all the way on the OTHER side of India from Pakistan. I thought, “who in the world makes a nation that is divided by another HUGE nation in between?!”
Looking at the map now you see that India has the rest of it’s country on the other side of …… Bangladesh.
Doesn’t make any sense.
What makes sense is for Bangladesh to ascede to India and there will be no need for a wall, no need for transit routes, no need for any of that and the tension/violence that goes with it.
It will also benefit Bangladesh financially, politically and sequentially in other ways like culturally and socially as well.
Maryam this was the original plan. The idea of Pakistan comprising both Pakistan and Bangladesh was not a Muslim League Aim but seemingly a Congress one.
In the final fateful vote of the Bengal Provisional Legislative Assembly on 20th June 1947, Nehru and the Congress 50 persuaded Mountbatten not to allow a vote on the independence of Bengal outside the framework of Pakistan. The assembly could only vote to join India or Pakistan, and the Muslims and Hindus would vote separately to determine if the province should be partitioned or not. The rules agreed between Mountbatten and Nehru allowed the votes of either group in the Legislative Assembly to trigger the partition of the province. This was specifically designed to prevent the Muslim majority voting to keep the province united but outside India.
“As for her claim that Yoga and Advaita actually came from Buddhism… One of the main principles of Buddhism is “anatta”, which states that there is no eternally-existing soul that survives after death. This flies directly in the face of Advaita Vedanta and Yogic Philosophy, both of which accept the existence of an Atman.”
Buddhism does have a concept of liberation from samsara, a uniting theme in Dharmic faiths.
Adwaita Vedantists say that the individual atman merges and becomes one with Brahman. Buddhists say that the individual soul ceases to exist as an individual. One could say it’s just a matter of semantics.
Many traditions and schools of though fall under the umbrella of Hinduism. Vedic, Vedantic, Yogic, Tantrik, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, etc. All are informed by each other.
Buddhism was informed by the Vedantic and Yogic schools. The yogic school and other schools were later informed by Buddhism.
Jainism became informed by Vaishnavism and Yoga, and later vice versa.
There are overlaps everywhere in Hinduism.
The common theme is the eternality of the atman – even if at some point that atman merges or becomes “extinct”.
Whether merged or extinguished, it’s moksha from the same samsara.
Zach,
Appreciate the response, but it appears with respect to these matters we are headed on the well traveled road of “agree to disagreeâ€. A few quick points in rebuttal before I move on to your question on Bangladesh.
Distinct geographic entity not = to distinct politico-cultural entity: Sindh and Punjab (east or west) were very much a part of the Indian cultural ambit. Various kingdoms and empires openly incorporated them or levied tribute on them as I wrote above. The Buddhist populations were certainly sizeable in both the regions we discussed, but were in no way overwhelming. There absolutely were significant (and in the Punjab majority) hindu populations there as evidenced by the great solar temple of Multan and the continued rule of overtly hindu dynasties such as Chach and Shahi in both Sindh and Punjab. Moreover, during Ghazni’s raids into India, he was opposed (unsuccessfully) by various rajput confederacies assembled by the Shahis which included contingents from India proper (ajmer, kannauj, etc). There is the natural push today by Pakistan to distinguish itself resulting in this separate indus v. ganges approach, but the reality is otherwise. Were Buddhists in the majority in Sindh—quite possibly, though we have no census records. Irrespective, there was a substantial hindu population there as well. Interestingly, arab chroniclers noted that after the first two caliphate invasions of sindh were defeated, qasim was able to succeed by reminding Buddhists of their commitment to nonviolence resulting in their conveniently timely capitulation. The fact that resistance continued before and long after this gives additional indications of the sizeable hindu population in Sindh. I know, being of Pakistani origin you might find it insulting, but your emotions are belied by the facts.
Sindh and W. Punjab were hardly tribal, savage areas. W. Punjab is home of ancient cities such as Pushkalavati and Taxila (ancient Takshasila where the most chaste Sanskrit was spoken and in the vicinity of which Sanskrit was forever “perfected†through the Ashtadhyayi of the grammarian Panini). There was a famed university there as well.  The great pauranic and dramatic stories of Savitri and “Urvashi and Pururavas†(the Vikramorvasiya by Ujjain’s Kalidasa) all take place in w. Punjab. Madri from the Mahabharata hailed from the region as well (Madra country). Even Peshawar—a little outside the Punjab–was the ancient Purushapura, capital of kushans. Sindh, though arguably a backwater of India, also contained many prosperous ports and inland cities (which was the initial arab interest in it as well). Sure, there were tribal populations in the area, like the meds, but the “pre-abrahamic†civilization here certainly dates back in the millennia.
No one here, that I know of, is in favor of Akhand Bharat—especially given all the fun surrounding Pakistan these days. I am no more in favor of a “saffronisation†of history than I am an arabization or europeanization of it. History should be a quest for the truth so that people can understand who they are, what they did right, and what they did wrong. India certainly did plenty of things wrong (like not plugging the khyber, bolan, and khunjerab passes with Mordor Morannon style Iron gates…I mean really), but the problem is, colonial history prevents us from appreciating what is right as well. India, like China and Europe is a distinct civilization. Some civilizations are more frequently unified under empires (China), some are more frequently warring states (Europe). India is somewhere in between. They have their heartlands and they have their peripheries. It is not by accident that the Mauryas incorporated sindh and punjab in their empire and why the Guptas, Pratiharas, and Karkotas all conquered or marched through to levy those regions to tribute.     4. You’re preaching to the choir on unfortunate, predatory institutional and financial influences from the Gulf…
Bangladesh
This is a difficult case, Zach. On the one hand, it is in India’s interest to cultivate a prosperous and secular Bangladesh (which is actually a possibility under Sheikh Hasina). On the other hand, in spite of the celebrated cultural links and Bangladesh’s (typically) mature approach to its pre-abrahamic cultural history, not a few Bangladeshi migrants have been linked to fundamentalist terror in india. The previous BNP government, Jamaat, and the Bangladeshi BDF (responsible for the coup attempt on Hasina) openly provoked India through terror support of HUJI-B and border skirmishes. Additionally, there is, tragically, a creeping fundamentalism now pushing into W.Bengal’s borders, as evidenced by the recent deganga attacks on the local hindu population with the intent of tilting the demographic balance. Moreover, the indigenous people of assam and other parts of the northeast face similar concerns with Bangladeshi migration, again tragically leading to creeping fundamentalism there as well. Indeed, ULFA, which used to be an anti Bangladeshi migrant group has since been co-opted by pakistan and china (the leader, paresh barua, has received refuge there) and has been redirected towards bihari hindus and the Indian state.
As such, India faces a dilemma of how to integrate with Bangladesh while protecting itself from creeping fundamentalism. The pipeline and trade links with Bangladesh would actually be beneficial to both countries. I’m in favor of a more concessionary approach given the relative size and poverty of India’s neighbors. However, there have been concerns on the Indian side about the transit fees being suggested by Bangladesh as near extortionary (not adopting the view, just communicating it).  So I suppose it is a two way street. Hasina’s problem is that anything less than that would be painted as a sell out by Khaleda Zia and the BNP and used as anti India and anti Awami propaganda.
Now to be fair, I think India needs to be much smarter in determining its approach with smaller neighbors, as like it or not, China has done a bang up job of building its profile south of the Himalayas. I know there are active attempts to integrate more through the Bay of Bengal community (BIMSTEC). However, as you know, I have limited faith in the diplomatic abilities of india’s present administration. Hope that answers your question.
Satya we are definitely on the road to disagreement but I dwell on a holistic heritage of the Indus Valley while you are concentrating on only its Indic aspects.
“The fact that resistance continued before and long after this gives additional indications of the sizeable hindu population in Sindh. I know, being of Pakistani origin you might find it insulting, but your emotions are belied by the facts.”
Erm Satya please read the nuance in my statement I am very happy with Pakistan’s Indic and Hindu heritage, what I do find insulting is being told by outsiders that this is the only determinant of our identity. Upon clarification my point remains Pakistan, the Indus Valley and our “civilisation” is comprised of several different elements, which we as Pakistanis should decide on.
“Sindh and W. Punjab were hardly tribal, savage areas. W. Punjab is home of ancient cities such as Pushkalavati and Taxila (ancient Takshasila where the most chaste Sanskrit was spoken and in the vicinity of which Sanskrit was forever “perfected†through the Ashtadhyayi of the grammarian Panini). There was a famed university there as well. The great pauranic and dramatic stories of Savitri and “Urvashi and Pururavas†(the Vikramorvasiya by Ujjain’s Kalidasa) all take place in w. Punjab. Madri from the Mahabharata hailed from the region as well (Madra country). Even Peshawar—a little outside the Punjab–was the ancient Purushapura, capital of kushans. Sindh, though arguably a backwater of India, also contained many prosperous ports and inland cities (which was the initial arab interest in it as well). Sure, there were tribal populations in the area, like the meds, but the “pre-abrahamic†civilization here certainly dates back in the millennia.”
Yes Satya compared with the rest of India the northwest was extremely undeveloped. I grew up a half hour’s drive from ancient Taxila so I know somewhat about it. Of course the Indus Valley has a rich culture and history but it is also a very tribal one (the British noted by the way in the 19th century that tribe not caste was more operative in our region).
My point being that ironically what “Indianised” the northwest more than anything was the Islamicate culture of the Mughals and the heavy investment of the Brits are what transformed both our economic and political fortunes. Incidentally the city of Lahore is almost the invisible arbiter between the rain fed Eastern Punjab and the more riparian Western Punjab.
The Indus has always been a borderland for India and as such been on its periphery; much like Bangladesh.
Also our pre-Abrahamic civilisation dates back to 4000BC I thought 😀
“Now to be fair, I think India needs to be much smarter in determining its approach with smaller neighbors, as like it or not, China has done a bang up job of building its profile south of the Himalayas. I know there are active attempts to integrate more through the Bay of Bengal community (BIMSTEC). However, as you know, I have limited faith in the diplomatic abilities of india’s present administration. Hope that answers your question.”
That was my original point it seems that China is becoming a pre-eminent power in India’s backyard. This has much to do with how India approaches her neighbours; Akhund Bharat must be shattered once and for all; even if we are all “Indian” the Republic of Bharat is not the voice or safeguard of that identity.
Many Vaishnava holy places are within the borders of Bangladesh and with it’s reintegration into India, more money will flow into those areas from Indian and international pilgrims who aline themselves with the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect.
Satyajit brings up the point about rising fundamentalism. I think Bangladesh’s fundamentalism is still so small that it can be contained, unlike Pakistan’s.
The answer to Pakistan’s fundamentalism is radical feminism.
We see that Feminism is a common factor in developed, first-world, secular nations. With the empowerment of women and the consciousness raising of men comes secularism, prosperity and all sorts of other perks.
Since “traditional cultures” are usually loathe to allow feminism to gain a foothold in their lands, the means of infiltration will have to be covert.
Tru dat Maryam, we really need to promote the divine feminine.
I just crafted my official Christmas message (http://latif.blogspot.com/2010/12/zachary-latifs-2010-christmas-message.html), which touches on East & West.
“There are overlaps everywhere in Hinduism. The common theme is the eternality of the atman”
The common theme from the Vedas is: there are gods who need to be sacrificed to.
Zach,
Since we’ve taken the onramp to interstate 1947, we’ll just agree to disagree. I will try (emphasis on the try) to be brief in my response to your points:
1.Irrespective of your personal view, Pakistan has a long history of wishing away uncomfortable facts. You can call them holistic, if you wish, but much like Dr. A, you are deconstructing without considering relative weights. The Indic identity was predominant. Naturally Pakistan does not wish to acknowledge that, otherwise it’s very raison d’etre goes down the drain.  Pakistan is a sovereign state and has a right to develop its own narrative—but that does not mean it is historically correct. Anyone who’s heard of Pervez Hoodhboy knows how the post-Zia textbook edits make a mockery of anyone remotely acquainted with history. Whether you like it or not, the Punjab and Sindh are intimately connected with hindu civilization. Just because eastern europe was under Turkish rule for hundreds of years, and Albania and Bosnia mostly muslim, does not mean it is no longer part of europe, and is holistically a separate entity—that’s just silly.
2.Much of what is underdeveloped in India today made up some of india’s greatest urban centers (bihar being a prime example). No one is denying the influx of central asian tribes into w. Punjab; however, it is again silly to attempt to erase the very civilized hindu culture that predominated there.
3.A quick skimming of a decent Indian history will show that the northwest was very much under the ambit of india. You’re welcome to deny and say that it was the mughals or british, but again, facts belie emotion. There certainly were different cultural infusions, but as Istanbul demonstrates, just because it is under muslim rule now does not mean it was not greek when it was Byzantion, Nova Roma or Constantinopolis.
4.No one is denying that  w.punjab and sindh were on the periphery of hindu civilization. But periphery does not mean not a part of it. The ancient pauravas and gandharas established very civilized kingdoms in those regions that were intimately connected to, and to this day inspire, hindu civilization. The later Shahis, who assembled hindu confederacies from middle india, did not rule there for no reason.
5.Akhand Bharat is not being advocated by anyone here. But if you want it to be “shatteredâ€, first shatter the mughalistan dreams that continue to emanate from various circles in Pakistan.Â
6.The rising profile of china in south asia has more to do with its overt funding of forces inimical to india—like the Maoists in Nepal, and yes, even support of fundamentalist Islamic forces on the subcontinent—than it does with India’s policies (Bhutan being a case and point). Yes, that’s right, it is not for nothing that UN security council action against Lashkar was vetoed by none other than China.  Chinese generals openly gloat about how Pakistan has become their “Israelâ€. Â
India should have wiser policy in managing its neighbors, but her neighbors must also demonstrate commensurate wisdom. Pakistan is a basketcase whose ideology we’ve discussed on sepia ad nauseam, so I need not touch on it again. But Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal should know better than to pawn themselves out to an aggressive mercantilist autocracy that will economically bleed them once its main asian rival is out of the way (see Africa as a case and point). Based on the treatment china has meted out to its smaller neighbors in se asia, they are only setting the state for harm against them down the road.
Whether or not Bharat is the voice to safeguard that identity, is not something that is going to be decided by illiberal states that openly finance fundamentalism and support demographic aggression against her. Frankly, considering the track record of either wing of the old Pakistan, Bharat has a far better case than either country at this, or likely any, stage. Nevertheless, while Maryam (who underplays the support for fundamentalism coming out of Bangladesh) may advocate Bangladesh’s accession to India, most Indians do not.
“The common theme from the Vedas is: there are gods who need to be sacrificed to.”
Which of course has nothing to do with Yoga or belief in Atman…..
Yoga can be traced back to long before hinduism. Mohenjodaro and Harappa have sculptures depicting yogis.
I think it’s the other way around, Maryam. Women in the US didn’t get the vote until a certain level of economic prosperity had been reached, and until secularism had been well established. The “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” is nowhere near close to the prosperous, secular, relatively socially stable level of society that the US was when feminism became a common factor. Most people are illiterate (and the literacy test I believe is as simple as writing one’s name), poverty is widespread, and islamic radicalism is sweeping in from the west. I think pakistan would have to become more economically prosperous (how?) before any western-type feminist movement could become truly popular.
The heartland of hinduism was not in Punjab or Sindh, much less further west. Varanasi in eastern Uttar Pradesh, almost in Bihar, was the center of hinduism.
However that does not mean that punjab and sindh were not considered part of India since ancient times. Of course they were. Alexander knew he was in India when he was in what is Punjab. So did the arabs when they conquered Sindh. The Indus Valley was an Indic civilization.
I don’t think Zachary Latif is claiming that Mohenjodaro and Harappa were not Indic. What he is objecting to is the claim by many hindu nationalists that pakistani muslims are all converts from hinduism, more specifically converts from the low castes of hindus.
Well I would think most Pak muslims are the descendants of hindu converts (not all obviously). As to what caste they originally belonged to, I have no idea, since I know very little about the caste system or hinduism in general.
I’ve heard/read that Islam was introduced to the Pashtuns as early as the 8th century, when the religion was rapidly spread east from saudi arabia out to Afghanistan. I have no idea what religion the pashtuns could have been before then (Hindu most likely? Buddhist? Zoroastrians even?) or what caste they might have fallen into.
Vivek, who in India reads the Rg, Yajur, Atharva or Sama Veda today? You seem to think that Hinduism = Vedic and that’s all. Like I said, all pre-Abrahamic South Asian wisdom traditions fall under the umbrella term “Hinduism”. Those wisdom traditions include but are not limited to Yoga, Tantra, Vedanta, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktaism – to name some well-known schools of thought.
Those traditions use the Tantras, the Vedanta Sutra, the Upanishads and the Puranas as their scriptural texts, not the Vedas, although they sometimes qoute from the Rg Veda as well, where it they can find a relevant sloka.
Please don’t tell me that the Tantras, the Vedanta Sutra, the Upanishads and the Puranas are not Hindu!
(As far as “Akhanda Bharat” I’ve not read any websites or articles about that concept but it might be wise for Tibet, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka to ascede to India, considering the threat that China and fundamentalist Islam poses to these places.)
Vivek,
the fact that yogis are depicted on Harappan steatite seals can also be viewed as further evidence of the linkage between IVC and Vedic/Hindu Civilization (especially given the existence of a theorized Pasupati (Lord Shiva) seal and the apparent emphasis on ritual bathing, so on and so forth). As has been previously noted, the book is still being written on this period. This debate is an old one, which has previously taken place here, but I just wanted to point that out given the unfortunate recent push to detach yoga from hinduism.
Additionally, even hindu nationalists recognize that not all modern pakistanis converted directly from hinduism to islam. There obviously were plenty of buddhist converts and a number of already islamized recent arrivals from Persia, Arabia, and Central Asia who were not of indic blood (though obviously not to the scale projected by Pakistan). The problem with Zachary’s thesis is that he is essentially adapting the one projected by the Pakistani state–that Pakistan has always been a distinct ethno-cultural-political entity. While the framework he pushes may be more appropriate for afghanistan (where you have a clearer case of janus like persian and india aspects (perhaps even halves–herat v. kabul–overlaid by more recent influences), it is not for punjab, sindh, and pok. There were also plenty of high caste converts as well, as evidenced by the caste identifiers still retained by modern pakistanis.
My responses have become long and meandering and I don’t want to flood the sepia thread so I’ve responded to Satya and Vivek on my blog.
Also I wanted to mention that I think its been a healthy and civil discussion that should be encouraged. We are obviously all passionate about our homelands and we should definitely move towards closer economic and cultural integration. I’m personally a libertarian (a pragmatic one) so for me the idea of an EU setup is anathema but eventually a peaceful political confederation, which respect nationalities, regionalities and sovereignties is the right way forward. Also my perspective on Pakistan is that we are part of many worlds that is what I meant by “insulting” when we are confined to only one. It is our heritage and what has been bequeathed to us by history, geography and culture & something we should be grateful for and work on.
The Indo-Pak sibling rivalry has already cost enough in terms of lives but also in opportunities lost so any steps to ameliorate are good steps or so I think.
“There obviously were plenty of buddhist converts and a number of already islamized recent arrivals from Persia, Arabia, and Central Asia who were not of indic blood (though obviously not to the scale projected by Pakistan).”
And what scale has been projected by Pakistan exactly? As you yourself acknowledged in the tribal lore it is precisely know which lineages are authentic, falsified and converted. For instance Punjabi Sheikhs claim Qurash ancestry, but its acknowledged they’re Khatri converts (which is why they’re incidentally merchants).
“The problem with Zachary’s thesis is that he is essentially adapting the one projected by the Pakistani state–that Pakistan has always been a distinct ethno-cultural-political entity.”
Satya just as you have been subliminally conceptualising that India has always been a coherent overaching nation state though you try to condition it here and there. When you deliberate obscure Bharat and Indicism as one and the same then obviously the debate will come to this; telling another nation that they are vassals of another is never a welcome feeling. What about flipping the hypothesis and reiterating that India is derived from a “Pakistani” river. Also again your knowledge of the region is a very tired one (the “Iranian” provinces of Khyber Pakthunkwa and Baluchistan versus the “Indic” provinces of Punjab and Sindh). Its been highlighted by anthropologists in the region that the cultures are so intermixed and have been so for centuries that simple and arbitrary distinctions based on linguistic markers really do break down as models.
This was a calm moderate discussion until the anons got involved 😛
“This was a calm moderate discussion until the anons got involved :P”
You are not referring to me, are you? I’ve been both calm and moderate.
Anyway, perhaps the term “Dharmic Faiths” would be more appropriate and less offending than “Hinduism”. I guess “Hinduism” is not politically correct these days.
Under the umbrella term “Dharmic Faiths” I would include not only those wisdom traditions classically accepted as Hindu such as Tantra, Yoga, Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktaism, etc, but also Buddhism and Jainism.
So there we go…. “Dharmic Faiths” is not only more politically correct but also more inclusive!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Or more politically correct: HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!
🙂
“who in India reads the Rg, Yajur, Atharva or Sama Veda today? You seem to think that Hinduism = Vedic and that’s all. “
The Vedas are the revealed scripture of hinduism. You are not a hindu if you do not believe in the Vedas. Even today priests are hired to perform vedic sacrifices and rituals. What do the Rg Veda et al teach? Not Yoga. That was borrowed by hinduism from the non-hindu spiritual traditions of India along with concepts like karma, reincarnation, moksha…
“Like I said, all pre-Abrahamic South Asian wisdom traditions fall under the umbrella term “Hinduism”.”
That is obviously a falsehood. South asian wisdom traditions like Buddhism, Jainism that reject the Vedas are not considered “Hinduism”. Yoga, Meditation, Ahimsa, Nirvana, Karma are all integral to these non-hindu Indic traditions while they were not to original vedic hinduism.
Zach,
I generally make it a point not to comment on individual user blogs, so I’ll just make a response to your blog post here, and then assume that the discussion has been concluded (so that people don’t have to keep bouncing back and forth between blogs). If you do want to continue it on sepia, I’ll be around and will respond, but as we’ve both acknowledged, we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
“1.Smart of the Chinese to do that IMHO; Pakistan desperately needs friends now more than ever, when the chips are down and things look bleak. If on the upside we do thrive again we’ll always remember the Chinese support (it’ll be Paki Chini bhai bhai) and if we crash and do break up (extremely unlikely but let’s imagine that) then China will gladly split the spoils and participate in the Great Game. The Chinese are doing a win-win proposition; sometimes India should engage in that with her neighbours?â€
Umm, the Chinese say win-win, and mutual respect and mutual understanding, but it really only ever ends up one way. That is why it has made it state policy to support rogue regimes and abetters of genocide like Sudan, Pakistan, North Korea, and Myanmar. Strategically savvy, sure, but hardly a positive vision for a subcontinent looking to develop and better its people. The fact that Pakistan is prepared to self-destruct to serve as china’s strategic tool says a lot about the country and vision it offers the people of the subcontinent
Also, I’ll ignore the point about geography/history. We’re all well aware of the origin of the word india and why india’s use of the name is appropriate. The effort to rename things South Asian, whether it is the civilization, subcontinent, or ocean (yes, the Chinese actually do these things) is as silly as splitting hairs over how india keeps a name attributed to a river now, by political skullduggery, is now in Pakistan. Does that mean Savitri, Pururavas, Panini, Ambhi, Porus, etc etc were all Pakistanis? You can see why this is becoming ridiculous.
“2.What is demographic aggression? Karachi has 1-2million Bangladeshis and I think its a shame + racist that we don’t incorporate the Bihars in Bdesh as we did with the Afghans. There is the issue of racism involved (Pakistanis unfortunately suffer from “Whitey complex” to their own misfortune) but also the simple fact that another 1 million Urdu speakers in Sindh would inflame an already tense ethnic situation. Bit of nuance there for u.â€
In the interest of your appreciating nuance, Zachary, I would urge you to do some more research. The demographic aggression taking place in w.bengal and the north east involves changing the religious character of the people in those regions (whether though migration, conversion, or outright genocide). As Pakistan and Kashmir have both shown, when the religious balance changes, calls for statehood are made and religious minorities wiped out. Anyone paying close attention to w.bengal knows that hindus are already being driven from border areas and that there have been an increasing number of attacks on hindus (notably women) within w.bengal’s borders. Additionally, the extirpation of the hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh should be truly horrendous for anyone espousing classical liberal values.  In pak, hindus were 25% at partition and are only less than 1% now—only 10% made it across, what happened to the other 15%? In Bangladesh it was 30% at partition, 15% after 1971 and around 8% now. Hindu women in both countries suffer repeat humiliations through sexual violence (80% of rape cases in Bang. come from hindu women) and their temples have almost all been destroyed (usually with denials of their existence after a mosque has been constructed). This of course, doesn’t even deal with the 3 million lives (mostly hindu) wiped out and the 200,000 war babies in the 1971 genocide. Many of you have dismissed these figures with the absurd 80,000 statistic, but anyone familiar with the Arthur Blood telegram knows that even the US was aware that a genocide was taking place. The fact that Razib found this genocide to be similar in quality though “several orders of magnitude†higher than the Gujarat riots, only shows how low the debate has sunk. Religious riots where 800 muslims and 300 hindus died after muslims burnt a train full of hindu women and children not = to Pak army sponsored genocide. Yahya Khan circa 1971: “Kill 3 million of them, and the rest of them will eat out of our handsâ€. Serious crimes against humanity have taken place at Pakistan’s behest that are nowhere near matched by religious violence in India. If you cannot acknowledge that, there is nothing more to be said.
In contrast, the muslim population in india has actually increased from 10% at partition to 13% now (no Razib alleged exaggeration in those numbers).
“3.This is the first I have ever heard of Mughalistan. Pakistanis and Pakistan have no interest in any part of the Subcontinent except one. There is absolutely no irredentism that exist on the part of Pakistan; more often than not the “Muhajirs” (Urdu-speakers like my late Sayyid grandmother from U.P) are the strongest advocates of Pakistan and integration. My grandparents came from East Punjab and Uttar Pradesh but I identify with the Indus not the Gangetic plains as my homeland. Am I too a “culturally confused convert”?â€
I think this is an indicator of the level of knowledge you have about IR issues related to Pakistan and the ISI-jihadi complex (I say this in polite tone not insulting). HM Saeed, LeT’s founder (and Pakistan’s most favored puppet), has openly said Kashmir today, Hyderabad/Junagadh tomorrow, and then Delhi. Irredentism is built into the Pakistani state’s DNA; otherwise it would fall apart. You can deny all you want that Pakistan dreams of achieving this by hook or by crook, but actions speak louder than words.
You have a certain view, fine. That does not mean it is historically accurate. People identify with where they grew up (in varying degrees). I know nothing of your life, and only a little bit of your ethnic background, so whether or not you are confused is a matter only you can decide.
Pleasant conversation. Adieu.
“The Vedas are the revealed scripture of hinduism. You are not a hindu if you do not believe in the Vedas.”
The Vedas are written in archaic Vedic Sanskrit. Who reads that these days? Very few people. “Hindus” mostly read the Puranas and Ithihasas along with some Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra for the more philosophically inclined.
I know that Vaishnavas give lip service to the Vedas but rely more heavily on the Bhagavat Purana, Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra as well as books written by modern authors for their scriptural reading.
As far as animal sacrifices, I know that some Shaktas in West Bengal do it, such as at Kali Ghat in Kolkata.
Like I said, “Dharmic Faiths” would be a more appropriate, inclusive, post-modern, politically correct term to use so I’m going to use that instead.
Dharmic Faiths would include the Vedic, Tantric, and Yogic traditions, along with Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktaism, Jainism, Buddhism and probably many more.
Vivek, the fact the you think moksha is a borrowed idea for hinduism (let alone reincarnation, yoga, karma, etc), demonstrates how low the deconstruction of hinduism efforts have stooped.
Dharma, artha, kama, moksha form the ancient purusharthas (aims of life) and have been intrinsic to hinduism from the very beginning. Liberation is at the very core of vedanta (aka the end of the vedas). The dharmasutras, puranas, upanishads and epics all deal with these and the above mentioned ideas and pre-date buddhism or whatever (non-hindu) sources you may attribute, or in this case, not attribute. Additionally, within hinduism, there are astika (orthodox) schools that accept the authority of the vedas and nastika (unorthodox) schools that reject it. It is for this reason that the realms of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism do not fall into easy and mutually exclusive worlds.
There are already enough people in the world who are misinformed about hinduism, courtesy of Deepak Chopra et al. Please do not add to those numbers…
What is “dharmic” about casteism?
Of the Indic religions it is only Hinduism that teaches this. Neither casteism nor Vedic yagnas have anything to do with the good stuff like yoga/meditation which predates Hinduism anyway and which is integral to Jainism and Buddhism in the same way that casteism, yagnas and murti pujas are integral to Hinduism.
You will find that Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs et al will not appreciate being lumped together with hindus. They are separate and distinct traditions that reject Casteism, Vedic rituals and sacrifices. You should respect that. As Zachary Latif has pointed out, Vedic Hinduism is as alien to India as Islam.
“Dharma, artha, kama, moksha form the ancient purusharthas (aims of life) and have been intrinsic to hinduism from the very beginning.”
This is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana
Indian philosophy is a confluence of Åšramaṇic (self-reliant) and Vedic streams that co-exist and influence each other.[2] Åšramaṇas held a view of samsara as full of suffering (or dukkha). They practiced Ahimsa and rigorous ascetism. They believed in Karma and Moksa and viewed re-birth as undesirable.[3] Vedics, on the contrary believe in the efficacy of rituals and sacrifices, performed by a privileged group of people, who could improve their life by pleasing certain Gods. The Sramanic ideal of mendicancy and renunciation, that the worldly life is full of suffering and that emancipation requires abandoning desires and withdrawal into a solitary contemplative life, is in stark contrast with the Brahminical ideal of an active and ritually punctuated life. Traditional Vedic belief holds that a man is born with an obligation to study the Vedas, to procreate and rear male offspring and to perform sacrifices……..Because the Sramanas rejected the Vedas, Brahmins labelled their philosophy as “nastika darsana” (heterodox philosophy). Beliefs and concepts of Åšramaṇa philosophies:- Denial of creator and omnipotent Gods Rejection of the Vedas as revealed texts Affirmation of Karma and rebirth, Samsara and transmigration of Soul (Later these practices were accepted in Brahminic religion Hinduism) Affirmation of the attainment of moksa through Ahimsa, renunciation and austerities Denial of the efficacy of sacrifices and rituals for purification. Rejection of the caste system Ultimately, the sramana philosophical concepts like ahimsa, karma, re-incarnation, renunciation, samsara and moksa were accepted and incorporated by the brahmans in their beliefs and practices, eg. by abandoning the sacrifice of animals.[5]. According to Gavin Flood, concepts like karmas and reincarnation entered mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renounciant traditions.[6] According to D. R. Bhandarkar, the Ahimsa dharma of the sramanas made an impression on the followers of Brahamanism and their law books and practices.[7] ….
I don’t think it’s fair to blame Chopra and others like him. The fact that so many are misinformed about hinduism is mostly because it’s not as widespread as the 3 Abrahamic faiths – Hinduism didn’t spread much further than India. Partly because unlike Christians/Muslims, Hindus never seemed intent on heavy missionary activity or pillaging other peoples land and converting the natives. Hey, if Indians had been as hell-bent on colonization as Europeans, we’d have a lot more people who are “informed” about Hinduism. I don’t think it’s really the result of people like Chopra and other “spiritual experts” or whatever he regards himself as.
Hah I like how you said pakistanis rather than “south asians” or more specifically – Indians 😉
@ Zach: “Karachi has 1-2million Bangladeshis and I think its a shame + racist that we don’t incorporate the Bihars in Bdesh as we did with the Afghans.”
— What do you mean by “incorporate the Bihars”?
@ Vivek: You say, “Vedic Hinduism is as alien to India as Islam.” Then later you qoute, “Indian philosophy is a confluence of Åšramaṇic (self-reliant) and Vedic streams that co-exist and influence each other.” So obviously what you call “Vedic Hinduism” is not as alien to India as Islam.
This conversation is a matter of semantics only. There is no word “Hindu” in any of the Vedas. Even though I’ve not read the Vedas, a person I met who has told me the word “Hindu” is not there. Hindu was a word given by non-Desis to describe the people of South Asia, later to be known as “Hindoostan”. There were all kinds of traditions and schools of thought going on there but they had some common themes. Yogis and fire sacrificers alike would have been referred to as “Hindoos”.
Even now, if a Desi Yogi is filling out an official government form and has to check a box for religion she will check “Hindu”. Same goes for a Desi Vedantist or Desi Tantrik or Desi Shakta or Desi Vaishnava or Desi Shaivite.
It is simply a loose umbrella term.
I don’t know where you get this idea that “Hindu” applies only to those who do yagyas or pay Brahmins to do yagyas for them.
Moreover, there are tantriks, vedantists, shaktas, and yogis who do murti puja as well.
My beef with the Abrahamic faiths and their shoot offs like Bahai (shout out to Zachary) is there aversion to icons like murtis.
What’s wrong with it?
Vivek,
You make statements without support and then reduce entire religious traditions down to yagnas and casteism, and apparently do not have an iota of understanding of ancient hindu thought to realize that moksha has always been an integral part of hinduism. All these paths, whether liturgical, devotional, karmic, or yogic are all different way to the same Liberation that has been at the core of hinduism since its inception. Your assertion otherwise is pure bunk and in line with attempts to decouple yoga and other key concepts from hinduism (much like the Paul Courtright freudian interpretation of Ganesha–misguided). The Vedas have various upanishads and brahmanas that serve as expositories to explain vedic philosophy. The Bhagavad Gita in turn summarizes the essence of these. In it you will find mention of precisely what you have posted (yoga, reincarnation, moksha, purusharthas etc, etc). All of these, in spite of questionable mosern dating predate buddhism. By deconstructing the vedas from these other texts, you are purposefully removing the philosophical coherence that motivates it and the hindu tradition.
You are incorrect. Both astika and nastika schools are part of the hindu tradition. Or are we now saying that people who practice lokayata are not hindus? Ridiculous.
 Casteism is terrible and should not be condoned. But caste (or more properly varna) exists to provide a division of labor for society since no society can exist with everyone focused on yagnas or other spiritual and non material exercises. What society does not have a division of labor? It is intrinsic to civilization. Casteism is not related to dharma, but each caste evolved to execute its own community specific dharma or duty.
No one is seeking to subsume buddhism, jainism, and sikhism into hinduism. They are certainly distinct traditions. But if you think caste does not play a role in sikh life (contrary to religious teachings), ask a jat or arora sikh whom their parents want them to marry. There is also a reason why especially members of the middle two are as comfortable going to hindu temples as hindus are to their temples or gurudwaras.
Your knowledge here is really very limited. Please stop confusing other readers.Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru%E1%B9%A3%C4%81rtha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra
FYI, The Dharmashastras include those attributed to the original Saptarishis themselves including Vashishta.
Maryam:
“This conversation is a matter of semantics only. There is no word “Hindu” in any of the Vedas.”
You can’t hide behind confusion based on semantics. There is no word “caste” in the Vedas either. I think we can be intellectually honest about what these words mean. Hindus believe in the Vedas, in casteism, in vedic yagnas. Buddhists, Jains do not. So your trying to lump all these indian religions under the umbrella term “Hinduism” is unacceptable.
“My beef with the Abrahamic faiths and their shoot offs like Bahai (shout out to Zachary) is there aversion to icons like murtis. What’s wrong with it?”
Well sikhism also rejects idol worship, probably due to muslim influence. Nothing wrong with icons and their adoration since it is known to foster spirituality so it is useful to those who need it. Christians of the catholic and orthodox persuasions practice it as well, though not in the extreme form it takes in hindu temples. The religions who are hell bent against it, Judaism and Islam most prominently, are ignorant about its efficacy. On the other hand you have to admit that vedic animal sacrifice is a wrong concept just like the Mosaic animal sacrifices of the Hebrews.
“Casteism is terrible and should not be condoned. But caste (or more properly varna) exists to provide a division of labor for society since no society can exist with everyone focused on yagnas or other spiritual and non material exercises. What society does not have a division of labor? It is intrinsic to civilization. Casteism is not related to dharma, but each caste evolved to execute its own community specific dharma or duty.”
You seem to be totally confused. On the one hand you call casteism “terrible” and on the other hand hand you are defending it. Make up your mind.
Why do the other indian religions reject casteism if it is “intrinsic to civilization”?
As for astika and nastika that is another example of semantic dishonesty, trying to lump together contradictory beliefs under one umbrella. This lumping together of the good with the bad seems like a devious way to perpetuate the bad, namely casteism, sacrifices and so on.
Satyajit Wry:
“You make statements without support and then reduce entire religious traditions down to yagnas and casteism, and apparently do not have an iota of understanding of ancient hindu thought to realize that moksha has always been an integral part of hinduism. All these paths, whether liturgical, devotional, karmic, or yogic are all different way to the same Liberation that has been at the core of hinduism since its inception. Your assertion otherwise is pure bunk and in line with attempts to decouple yoga and other key concepts from hinduism”
You are being dishonest. i provided a link and support by scholars. Here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana
Ultimately, the sramana philosophical concepts like ahimsa, karma, re-incarnation, renunciation, samsara and moksa were accepted and incorporated by the brahmans in their beliefs and practices, eg. by abandoning the sacrifice of animals.[5]. According to Gavin Flood, concepts like karmas and reincarnation entered mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renounciant traditions.[6] According to D. R. Bhandarkar, the Ahimsa dharma of the sramanas made an impression on the followers of Brahamanism and their law books and practices.[7]
Vivek, I did not lump Buddhism and Jainism under “Hinduism” rather I lumped Yoga, Tantra, Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktaism under that umbrella term and so does most of the world. There are some that try to lump Jainism and Buddhism under “Hinduism” but I’m not one of them.
However I would include Jainism and Buddhism under “Dharmic traditions” which is a more politically correct, inclusive term for the pre-Abrahamic faiths of South Asia.
“This lumping together of the good with the bad seems like a devious way to perpetuate the bad, namely casteism, sacrifices and so on.”
We have no choice but to lump together the good with the bad since in this world of duality there is always bad and good in everything.
Really, that’s your beef with them? Hah I could think of a dozen things off the top of my head that I dislike about the abrahamic faiths and you come up with aversion to icons! Well, I think we all realize that there is really nothing wrong with it. But their religion very strongly emphasizes monotheism to the point where having an icon is considered polytheism because you’re worshipping a material object rather than an abstract force like Allah/Yahweh. The strong muslim objection to polytheism explains why so many pak muslims look down on hinduism to the point of denying their ancestors were hindus themselves.
I mean, it’s like asking why Hindus object to eating beef or Muslims/Jews object to pork. From the religious point of view, there’s always some type of reasoning behind it that makes no sense to outsiders.
PS: in addition to all of the above, Krishna speaks about varna, ashram, AS WELL AS YOGA in the Bhagavad Gita. Seems he also mixed the “good with the bad”.
Maryam:
“We have no choice but to lump together the good with the bad since in this world of duality there is always bad and good in everything.”
In that case why do you draw the line between Dharmic and Abrahamic religions?
If astika and nastika religions/philosophies can be included under your inclusive umbrella, why not dharmic and non- dharmic religions? You are just being intellectually inconsistent otherwise.
Which is badder in your opinion: Muslim antipathy towards icons or Hindu casteism?
“If astika and nastika religions/philosophies can be included under your inclusive umbrella, why not dharmic and non- dharmic religions?”
Satyajit was the one discussing astika and nastika, not me. But non-dharmic religions could not be included under “dharmic” because they don’t contain the aspects of dharmic religions that make them dharmic. However both dharmic and non-dharmic religions could be included under the umbrella of “world religions” or “global wisdom traditions”.
”Which is badder in your opinion: Muslim antipathy towards icons or Hindu casteism?”
Sexism.
Which is why I promote Feminism as an answer to the world’s ills and not religion.
Vivek,
See, this is the problem. You speak on things of which you have no understanding. I assume you can handle nuance, so let’s try again:
1.Casteism is discrimination on the basis of one’s caste. Caste, or more properly Varnashramadharma, is a division of labor and assignment of dharma. While Yudhisthira clearly notes that conduct determines one caste, the system remained or became ossified, preventing mobility on the basis of natural inclination. The puranas and epics show a little indication of mobility through the advancement of dalits (such as Valmiki) and kshatriyas (such as Vishwamitra) to brahmana status. Ideally, any division of labor should operate without discrimination of any rung. The sad reality is that the privileged in every society tend to put on airs with the other classes and their less talented progeny seek to keep societal privileges to themselves and their descendants.
2.The other religions rejected caste to attempt to stem the possibility of casteism, but more notably, to ensure that the great philosophical teachings of the vedas and various other traditions/experiences which were originally only available to 3 varnas (and later only 1) should be open to everyone. That is why the Buddha ministered to all, whether they were great emperors or lowly ladies of the night.
3.Division of labor is intrinsic to civilization–or is everyone a banker in the developed world?
4.Re: your post on shramanas. First off, you ignored my point about the rather silly attempt to interpret the vedas standing alone rather than through the brahmanas and aranyakas which expound vedic philosophy (a very elementary mistake xommin yo neophytes). You can post a wikilink with dubious citations, but it does not change the fact that dharmic concepts we discussed are all ultimately dealt with in the upanishads and the gita as they provide expositories on vedanta and the motivating philosophy behind the vedas–something you conveniently ignore. With western “experts” such as paul courtright applying dubious freudian frameworks to the trunk of Ganesha, I think we have every reason to be suspicious of the Shramana theory touted by Gavin Flood et al.Â
More importantly, you conveniently ignored the links I posted on the purusharthas–where you demonstrated your ignorance on the intrinsicness of moksha to vedic philosophy. The purusharthas are discussed in the dharmashastras, many of which are attributed to the very rishis to whom the vedas were said to have been revealed to.
So in sum, whether it’s the Vedas, Upanishads, moksha, or even the very religion of Hinduism, it’s amply clear that you lack a basic understanding of the topic at hand.
Prefer the term Dharmic to anything else and I’ve always believed Pakistan’s uniqueness stems from being the border region between the Abrahamic world and Dharmic civilisation (the Great East). No other country has been on the cross-road quite like it
@Maryam I have nothing against icons or idols; all paths of worships should be respected and venerated. I agree with you that “sexism” is the worst ill in that the amelioration of women leads to the improvement of society (shout out to Pakistan where so MUCH needs to be done in that deeply patriarchal society).
@ all the anons Why don’t u guys sign on btw? I’m finding the discussion on Hinduism very interesting but I don’t really know to my about it; tried hosting a Diwali/Deepavali party last year but that was it. Need to learn.
“Hah I like how you said pakistanis rather than “south asians” or more specifically – Indians ;)”
@ Alina Can speak only of my own but I do think its a south asian complex. I’ve heard it prevalent it in Pathans but its interesting that you dont find it in Afghans and not so much in Middle Easterners (it exists but not in the same obsessive degree as in desis). I think it has to do with our hyper-mixed origins as desis and this identification with the light-skinned invaders/migrants whether they be Aryans, Scythians, Turanian Muslims, Europeans etc etc. We have a regional complex which we need to unload by embracing the Dravidian Mother goddess (I think that’s what the IVC cultures used to worship).
Finally @Satya let’s disagree here but I find our discussion very reflective of our founding national ideologies. You seem very attached to India, Indic and Dharmicism as the three pillars of the identity; from my readings (apologies I know even less about you than u do me) whereas for me as a Pakistani I enjoy the heady syncretism that I see my nation as. One day I wake up feeling Bollywood, the other day reading Cordoba and then the next about Elizabethan England and feel all three belong to my culture.
For me as a Pakistani I believe Pakistan can encompass all these three variants and be the stronger for it. I just find your arguments about how we’re exclusively Indic to be suffocating.
On the Biharis; here is the best place to check. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranded_Pakistanis
i’m going to take it as cold comfort that no one seems to want to talk about the actual post over here.
Zachary, consider me an outsider – I’m not Desi. However, having converted from an Abrahamic faith to a Dharmic one and having spent much time in South Asia and otherwise with Desis of various religious backgrounds, I have to say it’s a tendency amongst those of Abrahamic faith – Desi or not – to nurture condescending attitudes towards those of non-Abrahamic faith, ESPECIALLY when they come to find out you were once Abrahamic and left the fold.
The attitude is: why on earth would you convert to a “pagan” religion?!
I have found this attitude especially amongst Muslims and Christians, but would you believe – even Jews! Both among the devout as well as the non-devout.
For goodness sake – the Abrahamic faiths have all but taken over the world. Oh wait – THEY HAVE taken over the world!
Also, my experience with Bahai is that while not Muslim, Christian or Jew, they are also an Abrahamic faith based religion. I always wondered why Bahaualla (spell check) looked toward the West for inspiration when starting his religion rather than the East.
There was much more to draw upon if he would have looked towards “Hindoostan”.
(Also, the Bahais I’ve met have the attitude that the Bahai faith is the culmination of all religions so why would I choose a Dharmic faith over Bahai.)
Vivek is Prema.
@Nandalal we tried to stay on topic but just veered off-course.
@Maryam I agree religion and spirituality is a personal issue. http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/users/mk17/Docs/Bangladesh_paper.pdf
Some interesting history on “Islam in Bengal”:
From the twelfth century BC there was a thriving Indo-Aryan civilization in western India but even six centuries later Bihar and Bengal were still regarded as beyond the pale and ‘unclean’ in Vedic texts (Eaton 1993: 6-7). Significant Hindu influence began to penetrate into Bengal only during the Mauryan Empire (321-181 BC). But even this was not a smooth process because the third and greatest of the Mauryas, Asoka, converted to Buddhism.
That is why when the 1872 census of Bengal revealed that the province had a Muslim majority both the British and the Indians were genuinely surprised. The immigration of Muslims into the province could hardly explain these numbers, particularly since the bulk of Muslim immigration into India had been towards the Mughal capital at Delhi. While a large numbers of Muslims had indeed arrived in Bengal from outside, the immigrants were always a small proportion of the total population.
A significant part of the local population must therefore have converted to Islam over the centuries. But why did they convert in Bengal and not in most other parts of India? Muslim kingship across India did very occasionally use force or patronage to achieve religious conversion but never to any significant degree. This is supported by the glaring fact that the military and economic power of Muslim emperors was concentrated around the imperial capital at Delhi but Muslim conversion was relatively insignificant near these centres of power. Rather, as the 1872 census showed, the bulk of Indian converts were in the remote eastern and western fringes of the empire where both the coercive reach of the state and the patronage it could offer were much more limited. Indeed, even within Bengal, Muslim conversion appeared to be concentrated in the eastern and southern parts of the province, far even from the provincial capitals where Muslim political and military power was based.
Yep, this attitude is definitely prevalent. It really comes down to this: Before the Abrahamic faiths (specifically Christians/Muslims) took over half the world and forced conversion, many/most? people had pagan backgrounds in polytheistic religions. So they came to associate pagans/polytheism with the “uncivilized/barbaric natives” that had to be “saved” by christianity/islam. Jews were never big on invasion and colonization the way Europeans/Arabs/Ottomans were, but I think in general monotheists have a tendency to view their own religion as the guiding light, whereas older, polytheistic religions are lumped together as barbaric. The attitude of many Muslims is, oh if only those poor pagans to our East could be saved, then they wouldn’t be worshipping cows and the elephant-man etc…
Also: I know Hinduism predates Islam obviously, and I’ve heard also Christianity, but does it predate Judaism? Just wondering.
Alina,
Please keep in mind that Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, since it was a Persian king who freed the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. Many scholars believe that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion.
@ Alina Can speak only of my own but I do think its a south asian complex. I’ve heard it prevalent it in Pathans but its interesting that you dont find it in Afghans and not so much in Middle Easterners (it exists but not in the same obsessive degree as in desis). I think it has to do with our hyper-mixed origins as desis and this identification with the light-skinned invaders/migrants whether they be Aryans, Scythians, Turanian Muslims, Europeans etc etc. We have a regional complex which we need to unload by embracing the Dravidian Mother goddess (I think that’s what the IVC cultures used to worship).
I used to associate that color complex with Indians and figured it was a result of British colonization – I was wrong because: – It definitely applies to Paks as well, which I didn’t realize because the only Paks I know are [ashtun friends/family – It predates British colonization as Razib Khan pointed out earlier
I don’t think it’s prevalent in pashtuns partly because their society doesn’t have that same clean-cut socioeconomic breakdown of the elites staying indoors while the poor labor outdoors; pashtuns are a fiercely independently tribal people that have lived in harsh mountainous regions for centuries, and while like any other group they influenced, and were influenced by other south asians, they basically keep to themselves a lot and are hostile toward outsiders.
Also…this is just a personal observation but I can’t help but notice that in persian billboards/ads, the people typically look persian, in afghani billboards/ads, the people typically look afghani, but in indian ads/billboards, the people typically look….also persian? Or at least not like the indians I see around here. But I’m American, have never been to India, and we have 2 Indian channels at home which have been my only exposure to their media, so hey, what do I know?
Indian models looking “typically Persian?” You mean lighter-skinned or..? I live in India, and have never seen such a phenomenon. (And never seen blondes selling shampoos on TV, either. Unless it’s a foreign company/brand.) But that depends on what you think “typical Persians” look like, but having been to Iran, I can safely say that Indian beauty ideals definitely don’t fit with their looks, and I mean facial-features-wise not skin colour-wise.
Do you think the Indians you see in America, differ from the ones on the billboards in their facial structure/features or just their pigmentation? Just curious.
@Alina you mean like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5et-u-7mc0
mind you these guys do like Pakistanis but definitely on the lighter spectrum.. its a great song too!
The fact that so many are misinformed about hinduism is mostly because it’s not as widespread as the 3 Abrahamic faiths – Hinduism didn’t spread much further than India.
well, do remember that much of south east asia had hindu civilizations before islam and the ascendancy of therevada buddhism. there are still hindus in bali and among the malay chams of vietnam. and hindu culture is still esteemed among the javanese,in thailand and cambodia.
i don’t know why there is surprise as to jewish chauvinism. its pacific nature is a function of it being a small minority religion. certain the faith of the maccabbees was not pacific, and there were forced conversions of non-jewish groups under their rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees#The_revolt
and there were two major jewish revolts in the early roman empire which were very violent (jews massacred greeks and greeks massacred jews in alexandria):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War
the familiar face of abrahamic religious exclusivism is evidenced among the ultra-orthodox of israel, where jews no longer have to fear gentile persecution:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/orthodox-jewish-youths-burn-new-testaments-in-or-yehuda-1.246153
Also: I know Hinduism predates Islam obviously, and I’ve heard also Christianity, but does it predate Judaism? Just wondering.
the religion which we term judaism today is arguably only recognizable after the babylonian talmud of late antiquity. the judaism of the hebrew bible is a very different religion. as is the judaism of the early roman empire, which was split between hellenizers and non-hellenizers. the non-hellenizers won. the non-hellenizers, the pharisees, gave rise to rabbinical judaism. but even they were influenced by gentile ideas. the unofficial orthodox creed was outlined by moses maimonides after the year 1000 AD, but it was initially viewed with suspicion because of its philosophical influences.
the roots of the jewish religion go back 3,000 years. but orthodox judaism in recognizable form is really not much older than christianity (there is a hypothesis that hellenistic judaism was totally absorbed by christianity).