When it is stated that
Indian history is a struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism, there is a
problem of objectivity. That is because, of the word 'Brahminism' and
questions associated with it. A series of definitions, explanations, implications,
disclaimers and interpretations become necessary before going forward in
the study of Indian history, society and politics.
1. Definitions: The word Brahminism is indiscreetly
used along with another word Brahmanism. Some times they are used
interchangeably consciously / unconsciously. The words may be invented in
English and applied to portray Hinduism mainly by scholars not trained
through traditional methods / not aligned to the tradition / not
sympathetic towards the tradition. Broadly speaking Brahminism refers
to AchAra / rituals and lifestyle of brAhmaNa. Some even qualify that
Brahminism is negative aspects of brAhmaNas in the past and present times. In
both cases, Brahminism is used in negative connotation. The word
Brahmanism refers to the ism around brahman. This word may include some wider
aspects of Hinduism, especially of vEdas and is used relatively positive sense.
Still, the word is being used to generate a theory / a presentation of Hinduism
/ Hindus in modern academic context. The words Brahmanism and Brahminism
are to be related to Hindu, Vaideeka, Sanatana etc for clarity.
2. An explanation is required for the necessity of
inventing newer words. Why Brahminism is used instead of Hinduism requires
explanation. Similarly, the
appropriateness of usage of words such as vaidIka to represent only to
brAhmaNa engaged in yajana and not to a shUdra who is knowledgable in purANa,
requires a fair explanation. The words brahminism and brahmanims are similar to
other such words such as Hindutva, panchama, untouchability, casteism etc used
in recent times for discussing / describing Hinduism. Because of this one could
have a premonition of enlarging the scope of dynamics of present day confusing
discussion with the introduction of Brahminism / Brahmanism.
3. Those who are inventing new words to
characterize Hinduism must be aware that there is at least an implicit
undertaking by them that they have no other intent than seeking truth (what
ever good it means) and that they not working towards wrecking Hindu society. Non
traditional scholars need express their commitment not to distort traditional
concepts and unbiasedness towards any particular technical term.
4. The implication of not explaining definitions of
newer words, not providing explanation to usage of specific words, not
providing disclaimers preempting ascribing motivations to academic pursuit, is
to be understood in clear terms in terms of objectivity and rationality.
If these precautions are not taken,
counter-revolutionaries and irrationalists will become revolutionaries and
rationalists. Whether we need to use the
framework of rationalism and revolution to discuss Hinduism is another
question. But, when we are determined to
use this terminology, the deadlock situation in freedom-fighter v/s terrorist need
not be replicated in discussion on rationalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment