Source: TW
Again and again, the question of who is a Hindu comes up. Another form of it is “Red Lines,” one must draw to exclude someone from being an H. We see this in large part as reactionary – something responding to the Abrahamistic assault on the practitioners of dharma. Few days ago, we had posted a statement from an early scripture of the shaivAgama canon that had implicitly defined what could be taken as the boundaries of the H tradition. However, that boundary was not a sharp one; other comparable definitions over a millennium placed it at slightly different radii. Sometimes the boundary was not sharp – something seen in bhaTTa jayanta’s AgamaDambara. Different expansive boundaries (“big-tent”) were implicitly given in medieval times by authors like vij~nAnabhikShu and vidyAraNya. While we ought to be guided by the long tradition in this regard, the boundary and or the definition need to be a static one – there is definitely no harm in it to change with time, depending on the benefits it offers to those inside the boundary, likewise, with its porosity.
Given this background, I would say that the best definitions for the current age are those anchored in identity and theology rather than philosophy. Philosophy is hard to understand for most and is highly debated among the erudite. Hence, consensus is difficult even for a basic axiomatic framework. Thus, we argue that good definitions should ideally leave out philosophical anchors. When it comes to identity, we recommend against a racial one, though we recognize the historical importance and powerful biological draw of such. Just as the Turk in Türkiye’s self-identification as a Turk should not be denied, so too with the identity of a Cham in South Vietnam, however removed he may be from the Corded Ware vipra on the steppe. What is the thread in these cases? While there is racial transitivity, there may not be much racial contiguity; however, the cultural or religious identity is unmistakable.
This situation can be best captured in self-identity: You are H if you self-identify as H. This is one part of the definition. There are no red lines there: if you think you are H, you are H (it is a different question about how aware a H you are). However, this is not sufficient to complete the definition, for many true votaries are not sufficiently interested/aware of history or their tradition to self-identify as H. Hence, the theological clause comes in. If you are a votary or a deity or deities belonging to the Indo-Aryan pantheonic archetype, then you are H. Someone might begin to bawl something to the tune of: “You are encouraging Brahminism and excluding tribal deities.” The reality is I have spent a good part of my life studying tribal/avarNa expressions of the religion and have concluded they, in large part, uncomplicatedly map onto the Indo-Aryan pantheonic archetype; hence, this objection is moot. Finally, this is not an exclusive definition; hence, it can accommodate various tribal groups, be it in the Northeast of India or in Indonesia.
What about Indian counter-religious groups? It is up to them. By the second of the above clauses, many of them might fall within the Hindu radius. However, if they vehemently wish to reject that identity, then good riddance: they can call themselves whatever they want, and we reciprocate the hostility.