[Reader-list] Pankaj Mishra on Wendy Doniger's The Hindus - An Alternative History

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear All

I think one must understand the basic rationale, that religion is always
organized. And since the coming of the British, it's not only the British,
but also the reformers within the 'Hindu religion' who decided to actually
homogenize it, either directly or indirectly. Raja Ram Mohun Roy comes to my
mind, for he used the texts such as Vedas or others to support his reforms.
Later in turn, Dayanand Saraswati also referred to these in order to bring
reforms and secure support for his Arya Samaj. And ironically, Swami
Vivekananda also used the Vedanta to justify that Hinduism was a great
religion, but it's people had to reform themselves morally.

I think one must differentiate between the positive and the negative aspects
of this. The positive aspects were certainly there. Ram Mohun Roy did manage
to get sati banned through continuous protests and convincing Lord William
Bentinck. Moreover, Vivekananda was somewhere right when he said that
Indians had to turn inward to see why they had been subjugated by the
British rule (we had fallen prey to the British due to their ability to
divide our rulers).

However, what I have doubts with is the conditions of the subaltern prior to
the British rule. Whatever we do read about India, is something which has
been constructed after the British rule set itself up in India. Whether it
be the Hindutva history or the Leftist versions of history, both have come
up after this.

Therefore, I would like to ask the following questions, and anybody who has
answers to any of these questions, I please request, to kindly answer back:

1) Is it true that the idea that Mughals, or Islamic rulers actually forced
Hindus to convert, came into Indian consciousness post the British rule? Is
it equally true that it was under the British, that people came to hear
first that Muslims had destroyed temples in India? Is there proof of temple
destruction by the Muslim rulers prior to the British rule? Is there proof
for conversion as well?

Secondly, was the idea into public consciousness prior to the British rule?

2) What was the structure of the society prior to the British rule? Was
there a caste system to begin with, in practice, in India?

3) If there was a caste system practiced in India, was it as oppressive as
is talked about (when the case for reservations is argued, or say when
Mayawati or Paswan have their slogans against Brahmins)? Or was it of
somewhat different form than what is being talked about? And do we have
information about it?

4) Is it actually true that the British constructed totally a view of Indian
history, which the Leftists and the Hindutva scholars manipulated to attain
their own ends? And what we have today therefore are two versions, where
both try to prove that Hinduism is that or this (Left says Hinduism is just
traditions which are more feminine-oriented, while Hindutva tries to portray
Hindus as victims of Islamic and Christian rule out to get justice).

5) I hear it often from one of my friends that the Mughal rule or any other
Islamic rule, whether oppressive or not, was not of much concern to the
common people since it didn't have a great penetration into the society.

On the other hand, the British are said to have penetrated deep into the
Indian society and having affected public consciousness in a way which no
other ruler managed to do before. Is that true? And if yes, how did this
change us, or our society?

I would be very glad if people can put up answers to these questions.

Regards

Rakesh