Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


‘Evolution of Hinduism’: some counterpoints

Published Apr 11, 2012 12:00am


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

THIS is apropos of Mubarak Ali’s article ‘Evolution of Hinduism’ (March 25, Dawn Magazine).

In the first paragraph, Mr Ali writes that the term Hinduism was coined in modern times, but has not elaborated how modern was the time? In the next paragraph he mentions Brahmanism as if Hinduism and Brahmanism are synonymous to each other, and goes on to write that Brahmanism has assimilated teachings from Buddhism and Jainism. However, it is not the case.

The term Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu. This name was given to the original inhabitants of India by the Aryans who came from Persia to conquer India. They pushed the original inhabitants of the land, the Dravidians, to the south, captured their land and named them Hindu.

The word Hindu is from the Persian language meaning black, thief, slave, etc. This can be checked in any dictionary of the Persian language (ref: Farhang Farsi, Moeen Muhammad, Kitab khana Milli, Iran).

Considering the time when Aryans came to India, could it be referred to in any way as modern times?

The origin of Brahmans is traced by historians to Aryans who during their early times in India (2000 BC to 1200 BC), having their god and goddess Indar and Agni, compiled Rigveda, created caste system and made a strong influence on the religion which still continues.

In their caste system the Aryans placed Hindus, the black Dravidians, in the bottom.

Jainism and Buddhism appeared as late as 6th century BC; their teachings were quite contrary to the Brahmanism. Buddha was the strongest and the most influential person to revolt against the system of his times.

It is wrong to say that Buddhism vanished from India. One can say Buddhism like every true religion of its time migrated to the land which was most appropriate for the propagation of their belief.

Followers of Buddha now, no matter how true to the teachings of Buddha, exist in many parts of the world; in the past they had a strong presence in the northwest of India which are now part of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Buddhists are living in the north, south and east of India; they’ve flourished very well throughout the far east of India.

Hinduism, if we say was a religion of the original inhabitants of ancient India, is lost and forgotten. One has to make a sincere effort to discover it.



Your Name:

Recipient Email:

Comments (4) Closed

Sunil Apr 11, 2012 10:19am
'Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth' has been proven beyond any doubts. Read Nature -one of the most prestigious science journal- for more about elaborate genetic study conducted by many scientific groups. Moreover, Indian caste system is based on the occupation not on the basis of skin color (otherwise there would have been no Brahmin in Tamilnadu and other southern states). In addition, if whitish color skin was/is synonym to the Brahmin'ism then it does not explain the plethora of other castes (such as Jats, Rajputs, Ror, Gurjjars, etc.) who do not practice anything Brahminic (priest in temples) but have fair skin color. And of course, the claim that Buddha revolted against the system of his times (practices of Hinduism) is again devoid of any historical proof.
Chanakya Apr 11, 2012 10:35am
Never seen such an uninformed write-up on any subject being published in a reputed newspaper. The word Hindu derives from the portugese 'Gentoo' and the river Indus. Check facts before putting up such nonsense.
harkol Apr 20, 2012 09:00am
DNA evidence, used by researchers to trace the human evolution in Subcontinent in last 60,000 years, has shown that Aryan invasion theory is a myth. That is not to say there hasn't been migrations and cross pollination of genes and cultures in India, but there was no big-bang invasion by those who are called Aryans. This theory was propounded by the British, in the mistaken belief that the Dark looking southerners are Dravidians and Fair & Tall northerners are Aryans.
shibli Apr 26, 2012 12:13pm
to deal with such an issue of historical importance one need to be cool. Brain works faster and correctly.