it’s wrong to say that Hinduism is a product of colonialism -- a reaction to the spiritual desecration, homogenisation and centralisation of Hinduism
Colonialism, of course, transforms the way we talk about Hinduism through its legal codification, enumeration, and translation.
Hindus come to be defined as “those who have been arguing with each other within the same framework of argument over the centuries,” a gesture that both acknowledges diversity and contestation but also common stakes in the argument. .. When Shaivas and Vaishnavas are arguing over whether Supreme Consciousness is best expressed in Shiva or Vishnu, there is a contest over hierarchy but that presupposes a common frame of ontological experience.
If the Hindutva project is to homogenise and centralise Hinduism, the answer to that cannot be the historically ill-founded and philosophically inept strategy of denying the historical existence of Hinduism altogether. Or worse, to imagine that pre-modern Hinduism is simply an endless proliferation of sects, walled up, with few interconnections and not dependent on a shared cosmology, social system, or even intellectual concerns.
The more one reads pre-colonial texts, the more one is struck by the fact that the danger with Hinduism is not that it had no identity, but that its identity is too strong and self-satisfied, especially in relation to those it considers outsiders.
The debate over Hinduism requires greater theological imagination, philosophical subtlety and historical nuance. -Why it’s wrong to say that Hinduism is a product of colonialism https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-its-wrong-to-say-that-hinduism-is-a-product-of-colonialism-8203006/