Hindu Fundamentalism: Is It Really An Oxymoron?
The word fundamentalism was coined to describe a movement that insists on a literal interpretation of the Bible as the fundamental basis for Christian life. Over time, the word has grown in use, and its meaning has changed a little. Merriam-Webster's
defines fundamentalism
as "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Today the term is routinely used to describe Islamic movements. At the same time, many Hindus flinch when they encounter the phrase "Hindu fundamentalist". I have often heard people say, "That is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron!" (They might add for good measure, "you moron!") Is this claim true? Is "Hindu fundamentalism" really an oxymoron?
The proponents of this argument claim that since Hinduism (unlike Islam and Christianity) is not a religion of a Book, the idea of a literal interpretation of the one book as the fundamental basis of life can never arise. Some also stress that Hinduism in itself is a diverse faith with many different viewpoints. Therefore, they argue, fundamentalism is incompatible with Hinduism.
The first two arguments make sense. But there are some limitations. Christianity is a fairly diverse religion too, both in creed and in practice. Yet, most Hindus do not think of "Christian fundamentalism" as an oxymoron for this reason. Islam, while it does not have the many internal fissures characteristic of Hinduism and Christianity, does have the lasting Sunni-Shia schism which has implications for both doctrine and practice. Some of the most fundamentalist Muslim organizations are also the most vehemently sectarian. Thus, diversity in itself is no guarantee against fundamentalism. After all, just because something is an oxymoron, it doesn't mean it never occurs in practice!
Moreover, the dictionary definition of fundamentalism refers to "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". In this sense, Hindu fundamentalism is not only possible, but it exists all around us. Like literal interpreters of the Quran and the Bible, Hindu fundamentalists insist that the principles of this particular book or that specific tradition be strictly adhered to, regardless of any negative impact on 21st century society. Hindu fundamentalists of different generations opposed widow remarriages, the abolition of practices like sati and child marriages, etc., all on the grounds of strict and literal adherence to ancient tradition. This is today reflected in the insistence on strict adherence to temple customs as followed for millennia, even if it means depriving a large fraction of Hindus of their right to worship in public.
How different is this stand from the demand of Pashtun tribes in the Northwest Frontier Province for the implementation of the Sharia? How different is this insistence on compliance with the agama shastras from an evangelical's insistence that the world was created 6,000 years because the Bible says so? In my opinion, these views are all rooted in a misplaced confidence in the infallibility of one particular book or tradition, and in that sense, they all belong firmly in one category: religious fundamentalism.
The proponents of this argument claim that since Hinduism (unlike Islam and Christianity) is not a religion of a Book, the idea of a literal interpretation of the one book as the fundamental basis of life can never arise. Some also stress that Hinduism in itself is a diverse faith with many different viewpoints. Therefore, they argue, fundamentalism is incompatible with Hinduism.
The first two arguments make sense. But there are some limitations. Christianity is a fairly diverse religion too, both in creed and in practice. Yet, most Hindus do not think of "Christian fundamentalism" as an oxymoron for this reason. Islam, while it does not have the many internal fissures characteristic of Hinduism and Christianity, does have the lasting Sunni-Shia schism which has implications for both doctrine and practice. Some of the most fundamentalist Muslim organizations are also the most vehemently sectarian. Thus, diversity in itself is no guarantee against fundamentalism. After all, just because something is an oxymoron, it doesn't mean it never occurs in practice!
Moreover, the dictionary definition of fundamentalism refers to "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". In this sense, Hindu fundamentalism is not only possible, but it exists all around us. Like literal interpreters of the Quran and the Bible, Hindu fundamentalists insist that the principles of this particular book or that specific tradition be strictly adhered to, regardless of any negative impact on 21st century society. Hindu fundamentalists of different generations opposed widow remarriages, the abolition of practices like sati and child marriages, etc., all on the grounds of strict and literal adherence to ancient tradition. This is today reflected in the insistence on strict adherence to temple customs as followed for millennia, even if it means depriving a large fraction of Hindus of their right to worship in public.
How different is this stand from the demand of Pashtun tribes in the Northwest Frontier Province for the implementation of the Sharia? How different is this insistence on compliance with the agama shastras from an evangelical's insistence that the world was created 6,000 years because the Bible says so? In my opinion, these views are all rooted in a misplaced confidence in the infallibility of one particular book or tradition, and in that sense, they all belong firmly in one category: religious fundamentalism.
© Pavan Pamidimarri., all rights reserved.
In case you missed...
Some other recent posts by Pavan Pamidimarri
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.
Recommend