The conference will explore one central question: Is it possible to say that the descriptions of the Indian culture and its traditions are the products of the Western experience of India? In the domain of religious studies, in postcolonial studies and in the field of comparative science of cultures, scholars have begun to argue that the questions and conceptual framework for the study of India and its religions are firmly embedded within the Western cultural history, namely within the theological framework of Christianity. How true is this? If true, what are the possible alternatives? This concern will be addressed by an elaboration of the following themes:
Religious studies have largely been a Western affair and have so far failed to take hold in India. The classical study of religion regards entities such as Hinduism and Buddhism as the ancient religions of India. Yet, they face problems in recognising Hinduism as a religion, since it does not have a specific creed, a specific belief in one God or even a fixed set of gods, a shared form of worship, or a central church-like structure… The postcolonial school contests the descriptions of Hinduism and Buddhism as the ancient religions of India. They regard these religions as colonial constructions that did not exist in pre-colonial India. Both approaches assume that at least today, Hinduism and Buddhism exist as religions. A third approach, namely, the comparative science of cultures, claims that there has never been any empirical or theoretical proof for the existence of native religions in India. Instead, it studies ‘Hinduism’ and such like as experiential entities of the Western cultural experiences of India.
The questions that the religious studies need to solve are the following: Can we understand Hinduism and Buddhism as religions, in spite of the problems of identifying them as such? If we can, are they different kinds of religion than Christianity or Islam? If we cannot, what are the implications for the study of the Indian traditions?
It is commonly accepted that colonialism has had a determining impact on the Indian society. Some authors claim that it has created and imposed entities such as Hinduism that did not exist in pre-colonial India. In that case, how to explain the perceptions of both Muslims and the early European travellers, who saw a Hindu religion in India? How can we explain why many Hindus speak about “their Hindu religion” today, and why have they never contested this notion of Hinduism? What does it mean to say that Hinduism is a colonial construction? Why did the colonials need to invent religion, rather than something else? What is said to be constructed: an idea or a real phenomenon? How, if not as religions, can we understand the Hindu traditions?
Evolutionary biological explanations of religion hold that religion is the product of the evolutionary process. Others hold that religion is a neurological accident. The questions they ask are: “Since religion is a cultural universal, there should be a genetic explanation for the existence of religion. How does religion enhance our survival, if indeed, it does? Why is the human mind receptive for ‘religion’ or ‘God’?” The ‘atheists’ in the debate agree on the fact that religion is “the artefact of a primitive mind or represents merely one stage in the evolution of mankind”. Believers object to this and argue that “the human mind’s receptiveness to God proves His existence.”
Can evolutionary biology ever explain the origin of religion? Does not this explain religion away? Does not the attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation of religion result in a massive exercise in petitio principii, i.e. presupposing what one needs to prove? Are the questions of evolutionary biology regarding religion scientific or pseudo-scientific in nature?
Many have opposed the Aryan Immigration theory because, they claim, it has never been based on any scientific research. Nevertheless, the Aryan Immigration theory is commonly accepted as the historical framework in which the evolution of the Indian religion – from Vedic religion through Brahmanism to Hinduism – and the caste system are conceptualised. If it is true that this theory has no scientific basis, what are the implications for our descriptions of Indian culture in terms of Hinduism and the caste system? That is, we need to understand the role this theory plays in the understanding of the Indian traditions.
It is widely felt that a mutual understanding between religions will reduce violence between the different religious communities. The conviction behind this sentiment is that inter-religious dialogues are the best solutions to the problem of religious conflicts. Yet, history has repeatedly shown that intense religious dialogues have often gone hand-in-hand with a great deal of violence. Therefore, an understanding of inter-religious dialogue needs to solve the following questions: What exactly is the nature of an inter-religious dialogue? If so beneficial, why have they failed in promoting peace? Is the relation between violence and religious dialogue merely contingent in nature? What should be the goal of inter-religious dialogues?
Religious conversion has become a controversial issue in contemporary India. One side of the debate on religious conversion is represented by those who claim that conversion and proselytisation are basic and inalienable human rights. The other side claims that the conversion activities of Christianity and Islam violate the integrity of Hindu traditions and disturbs the social peace in a plural India. The aversion towards the proselytising drive of Christianity and Islam is widespread among a wide variety of Hindu groups. So far, the debate has not seen significant progress. The two positions on conversion are considered to be incompatible and are governed by feelings of mutual incomprehension, unease, and resentment. How can we understand laws against conversion? Has it got something to do with political agendas rather than with the nature of their traditions? How do Indians experience conversion? What is the impact of conversion on the Indian traditions?
On the one hand, it is commonly felt that secularism is the solution to religious violence in India, especially with regard to conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. On the other hand, secularism is fiercely contested by a variety of groups. Moreover, historically, notions of secularism and tolerance originated as solutions to problems related to the religious strife in the West. Therefore, it is important for religious studies to develop an understanding of those problems that secularism and tolerance can solve, and whether or not these are also the problems Indian society faces with regard to religious pluralism. What are the concerns in the Indian criticisms of secularism? Are they merely part of the political agenda of the Hindu right? Why do many Hindu groups share feelings of unease with respect to secularism?
Descriptions of the Indian traditions in terms of polytheism, image worship, ritualism… make them into weak and inferior variants of the three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These kinds of descriptions have been experienced by many Indians as a denigration of their traditions and as violation of their experiences. In response to this, some have tried to develop a more positive representation of Hinduism. This representation, however, tends to make Hinduism even more into a mirror image of Christianity (see for example the California textbook controversy). Such responses are often associated with Hindu fundamentalism. It is very unlikely that all Indians who feel that their traditions are represented negatively are Hindu fundamentalist. The question then becomes: How can we develop an alternative description that resonates with the Indian experience of their traditions?
There is a widely held belief that there is something strikingly immoral about the Indian social organisation. The Indian society is said to be determined by a rigid and hierarchically structured social system, namely the caste system. This system is seen as an impediment to development and social mobility. At the same time, empirical research shows that there is no recognisable hierarchy to be found in Indian society; that there is no authority to implement the ‘caste laws’; that so-called caste laws are not even known to most Indians; and so on. Equally importantly, Hinduism and the caste system are almost rigidly coupled to each other and the portrayals of the Buddhist ‘revolt’ against the caste system and the Brahmanism of that period are the orthodoxy in the literature. How and in what way is Hinduism related to the caste system? What kind of a system is the caste system?
India is characterised as home to a wide variety of religions and traditions that have managed to peacefully co-exist for centuries. At the same time, there seems to be agreement about the fact that some of the Indian religions (that are socially restrictive and inherently intolerant) generate religious conflicts, give rise to widespread inequality and sanction practices such as untouchability, especially as it is embodied in the Brahmanical caste system. For instance, there have always been fierce debates between different groups in India, such as those between Buddhists and Brahmans or the Saivites and the Vaisnavites. Are these examples of religious conflicts? What makes some conflicts into religious conflicts as distinct from political, social or economic conflicts? When could we say that a conflict between groups or individuals is a religious conflict?