How Much Did The British Really Influence India

[Silverbackman]

I have read that many of the conservative culture of India was basicly passed down by the British. For example Hinduism is not against sex nor against homosexuals but many say that the reason why Hindu Indians seem like they are is because of the British used to think this back when the nation was Christian.

Is this true and what other big influences did Britian have on India's culture?

BTW, I'm glad though that they did not have the power to convert all hindus to christian. If you look at Africa and China, all the parts that were colonized had religions that could not stand up to Christianity. I think Hinduism surviving the Christian imperialism is a big achievement and not just another "false" religion as they think (in fact Hinduism seems more true).

[satay]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I have read that many of the conservative culture of India was basicly passed down by the British. For example Hinduism is not against sex nor against homosexuals but many say that the reason why Hindu Indians seem like they are is because of the British used to think this back when the nation was Christian.

Namaste Silver,

First of all, to say that Hinduism is something something...
doesn't make sense. Since there is no one "official" hindu view. The basic points that all hindus will tell you are:
1. There is life after death i.e. soul incarnates; imlied in that is that such an entity called soul exists.
2. There is such a thing called Karmic law and we are in this karmic cycle.

Aside from these two basic principles, everything else is on a spectrum and the answers depend on who you ask. But to get the best answers one must find a guru who has studied vedas for years and years.

For example about sex, Hinduism has the kama sutra. Hinduism if you study it deeply, has explored anything and everything from astrology, astrononmy, atomic science, realivity theory, math, philosophy to sex. There is no area that hasn't been touched and studied to the fullest extent by the Dharma adherents of the east.

satay

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by satay

Namaste Silver,

First of all, to say that Hinduism is something something...
doesn't make sense. Since there is no one "official" hindu view. The basic points that all hindus will tell you are:
1. There is life after death i.e. soul incarnates; imlied in that is that such an entity called soul exists.
2. There is such a thing called Karmic law and we are in this karmic cycle.

Aside from these two basic principles, everything else is on a spectrum and the answers depend on who you ask. But to get the best answers one must find a guru who has studied vedas for years and years.

For example about sex, Hinduism has the kama sutra. Hinduism if you study it deeply, has explored anything and everything from astrology, astrononmy, atomic science, realivity theory, math, philosophy to sex. There is no area that hasn't been touched and studied to the fullest extent by the Dharma adherents of the east.

satay

So in other words hinduism is a religion that more explains things more than actually enforcing a doctrine if I'm correct. So a hindu can differ in points of views on morality but still be different? All they have to do is believe the spiritual concepts, right? There are no doctrines to follow?

Also, isn't hinduism generally open toward most things such as sex? Doesn't that mean then the British may have had influence on there way of belief? For example hindus follow a religion that does not promote a doctrine, it is more of spiritual and nature beliefs of everything and how the universe works, not so much as a religion that says "you must do this to go to heaven". Meaning the Christian dogma was comvined with hindu religious concepts?

[satay]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So in other words hinduism is a religion that more explains things more than actually enforcing a doctrine if I'm correct. So a hindu can differ in points of views on morality but still be different? All they have to do is believe the spiritual concepts, right? There are no doctrines to follow?

Also, isn't hinduism generally open toward most things such as sex? Doesn't that mean then the British may have had influence on there way of belief? For example hindus follow a religion that does not promote a doctrine, it is more of spiritual and nature beliefs of everything and how the universe works, not so much as a religion that says "you must do this to go to heaven". Meaning the Christian dogma was comvined with hindu religious concepts?

One can not compare the closed system of religion like christianity and islam to the open systems of eastern philosophies especially sanatana dharma. Religions like christianity and islam believe that there is no knowledge outside of the revealed scripture. Sanatana Dharma says something very radical about this. It says that yes, there are scriptures but one can go beyond the scriptures! The scriptures only tell us so much and there is a point in one's spiritual journey where the scripture becomes useless so to speak because the 'self' or consiouness gets developed beyond our normal gross senses.

Don't get me wrong. Hinduism is not saying that anything and everything is good. No. It's saying that whatever actions take you closer to God are good actions. To do 'good' actions one need not even be religious. E.g. if you see a man bleeding to death on the street...does one need a book telling him that it's a right thing to do to help this man? No, of course not.

All eastern philosophies as far as I understand teach this: Morality comes from within! You can not be 'moral' by reading a book. True morality comes from within...then your whole being is moral, then your whole existence demands you to be moral...there is no other way once morality from within is awaken.

There are obviously doctrines to follow but there is no such thing as shoving it down your throat. E.g. You could be living the 'hindu' way and not know it! Hinduism does not support any dogma. It is not a closed system. It's open.

I don't understand what you are asking abut sex and hinduism.

satay

[Silverbackman]

Are there any comandments in hinduism? Such as;

1. You Shall Not Kill
2. You Shall Not Steal
3. You Shall Not Lie
4. You Shall Not Cheat
5. and so on ect. ect.

Of course as you said it should be common sense to know these things but when enforced in a religion (at least these fundemental concepts) it can effect how peaceful a societ is.

Also what I mean about hinduism and sex is that isn't sex more open in Hindu society, but for some reason it is strictly taboo to show even kissing in films. Also showing a sexual behavior in public is conosidered wrong in India, and yet hinduism I read does not teach this. So didn't the British and their Christianity create the strict laws toward sex, or has India always been private when it comes to sex?

[satay]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Are there any comandments in hinduism? Such as;

1. You Shall Not Kill
2. You Shall Not Steal
3. You Shall Not Lie
4. You Shall Not Cheat
5. and so on ect. ect.

Of course as you said it should be common sense to know these things but when enforced in a religion (at least these fundemental concepts) it can effect how peaceful a societ is.

Namaste Silver,
There are shastras called Dharmashastras. These are set of shastras that outline the Vedic commandments. These shastras deal with questions of materialis, social conduct, sources of law, Laws concerning women, Laws concerning inheritance etc. The most famous of these are Manusmiriti which lays down rules for human conduct.

One of the most important doctrines of Sanatana Dharma and any dharma philosophy for that matter is the tradition of Ahimsa (non-injury). Ahimsa means that one should not hurn anyone by one's actions, thoughts or words.

Of course, like I said earlier, Hinduism is not so much about orthodoxy or dogmas. It degree of your belief in Hinduism hardly matters. What matters the most is the degree of your practice of Hinduism.

Also what I mean about hinduism and sex is that isn't sex more open in Hindu society, but for some reason it is strictly taboo to show even kissing in films. Also showing a sexual behavior in public is conosidered wrong in India, and yet hinduism I read does not teach this. So didn't the British and their Christianity create the strict laws toward sex, or has India always been private when it comes to sex?

Hmm...This I am not sure about. I have wondered about it too. I think it could be a culture thing but yes it could also be british thing. Any references on why 'you' think that it could be British influence as far as sex is concerned?

One think that British did was that they didn't only rape india and its people of their wealth and culture but they also planted all kinds of inferiority complex seeds. So now the new generations are growing up with almost no desire to learn about their own culture, tradition and philosophical system. I was like that for the most part of my life. It's only recently that I have taken up interest in my own heritage, culture and Dharma. What a shame to have wasted all those 30 years.

satay

[Agnideva]

As you mention Satay, there are no commandments as such in Hinduism. However, there are many texts which give a code for leading a dharmic life. There are 10 yamas (vedic restraints) and 10 niyamas (vedic observations).


YAMAS (restraints):

1. Ahimsa (non-injury)

2. Satya (truthfulness)

3. Asteya (non-stealing)

4. Brahmacharya (divine conduct)

5. Kshama (patience)

6. Dhriti (steadfastness)

7. Daya (compassion)

8. Arjava (honesty)

9. Mitahara (moderate appetite)

10. Saucha (purity)



NIYAMAS (observations):

1. Hri (remorse)

2. Santosha (contentment)

3. Dana (giving/donating)

4. Astikya (faith)

5. Ishvarapujana (worship)

6. Siddhanta Shravana (learning the scriptures)

7. Mati (cognition)

8. Vrata (sacred vows)

9. Japa (reciting mantras)

10. Tapas (austerities/meditation)



Depending on the text, the list may include only 5 of each, or all ten. There are particularly emphasized in yoga.

I also heard from a friend that there is a list of 21 instructions given to the outgoing vedic student by the preceptor. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to find the list and post it on this group.


Aum Namah Sivaya,

Agnideva.

Originally Posted by satay

Namaste Silver,
There are shastras called Dharmashastras. These are set of shastras that outline the Vedic commandments. These shastras deal with questions of materialis, social conduct, sources of law, Laws concerning women, Laws concerning inheritance etc. The most famous of these are Manusmiriti which lays down rules for human conduct.

One of the most important doctrines of Sanatana Dharma and any dharma philosophy for that matter is the tradition of Ahimsa (non-injury). Ahimsa means that one should not hurn anyone by one's actions, thoughts or words.

Of course, like I said earlier, Hinduism is not so much about orthodoxy or dogmas. It degree of your belief in Hinduism hardly matters. What matters the most is the degree of your practice of Hinduism.

satay

[I, Brian]

I've only read a little on British India - generally before 1850 - in which case the British are pretty much an accidental governing class who were primarily present to protect trading interests against other European powers, not least the French, and that things got a little out of hand - with India lacking in natural internal borders, once the British gained influence in one region, they felt a need to protect that influence by extending it...

I've still not finished reading on the subject, but overall, I'm not given to a perception of the British in India looking for cultural conquest, and that matters of the Indians were necessarily their own. It's worth considering that as the British influence grew strongest in the late 1800's, there was conversely a growing interest in general Eastern philosophies.

I don't yet detect any sign that the British had any over or official policy of dictating conversion to Christianity - I'm not sure I can find an official policy on that in the British Empire (though it is a weak area of history for me).

Overall, it seems that in India people were mostly left to make their own decisions, with the governing British class stepping into Indian affairs only on issues they regarded as moral issues to be addressed, such as immolation and the lowest tiers of the caste system.

2c.

EDIT: And welcome to CR, Agnideva.

[I am free]

Hi Silverbackman,

I have read that many of the conservative culture of India was basicly passed down by the British. For example Hinduism is not against sex nor against homosexuals but many say that the reason why Hindu Indians seem like they are is because of the British used to think this back when the nation was Christian.

The British first came to India in 1613 and stayed in India only for about 300 years. India always had a long line of invaders which included Alexander the Great, the muslim invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and the Mughals. The Mughals set up a very vast and powerful empire in India. Islamic traditions and culture have had a very strong influence on India. I am sure that Hindu culture also would have been influenced strongly.

Manu-smriti which gives the laws for code of conduct for Hindus has some very "strict" injunctions. It was probably written before Christ.

I feel Indian society had become coy long before the British arrived. Infact evils such as caste system and sati were very prevalent. The British infact introduced laws and reforms to eradicate Sati.

[prajapati]

to answer the original question -

positively ? - hardly
negetively ? - hugely and for good most likely

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I am free

The British infact introduced laws and reforms to eradicate Sati.

ram mohon roy.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by prajapati

ram mohon roy.

You are right Prajapati, Raja Ram Mohan Roy did play a very important role in campaigning relentlessly against the evil practice of Sati.

But the role of the British is no less. It was the British under Lord William Bentick which passed the law in 1829 abolishing Sati. Their role was not just limited to enacting the law. They also made sure that the law was implemented strictly.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I am free

You are right Prajapati, Raja Ram Mohan Roy did play a very important role in campaigning relentlessly against the evil practice of Sati.

But the role of the British is no less. It was the British under Lord William Bentick which passed the law in 1829 abolishing Sati. Their role was not just limited to enacting the law. They also made sure that the law was implemented strictly.

er the brits had the reins of india.

if ram mohon roy wanted to make sati cumpulsory instead of abolishing it, he would still have to approach the same brits to pass the law.

so aside of "signing on the line" they did precious little - nor could they care less if it was abolished or continued. they did spread the canard in the west though that sati is very rampant in india and all women have to suffer the fate - had that been so, there would not be very many femals left in india. they also went around spreading the myth that it was they who abolished it. well thats poms for you !!

[New World]

How Much Did The British Really Influence India?

- well, how about the fact that 'Hinduism' as a discrete 'religion', or rather the conception that it is one, derives from the British and was taken on by - er - I suppose today we call them Hindus!! But they didn't call themselves that or have any conception that they belonged to a religion or to the same faith before the British arrival. India used to be, well spiritually not so different to how it is now in its diversity, but politically it wasn't 'one' and there was no concept of being a 'Hindu'.

Just 250 years ago absolutely no-one would have thought of themselves as a 'Hindu' or used the word.

If you trace that word back, it begins with the Muslim invaders who settled and called the people already in the subcontinent after the 'Indus' valley. The name then somewhat lapsed. The first-ever appearance of the word 'Hindoo' in print is in a pamphlet in support of 'Hindoos' written by an Englishman in the 1820s.

Basically the British, being themselves Christian, saw other peoples in the light of belonging to either theirs or another 'world religion' - even though there was no one unified religion in India at the time. Nor, arguably, now.

For some decades only the British really spoke and talked of 'Hindoos' or Hindus. But the practice caught on among Indians, as they were taught in Western schools, and especially in the late 1800s when non-Muslim Indians were beginning to collect together in movements such as the Brahmo Samaj in order to assert their own identity as opposed to Western identity.

If you are going to say you are NOT something (British and Christian, for example) you tend to end up saying what you are. You need a self-label. And so by the 1880s some Indians were calling themselves 'Hindu' and things have gone on from there.

Western scholars e.g. Robert Jackson, now accept and agree that the West reified (recreated to their own conceptions) the Indian religious nature, thinking of it as a 'world religion'. They called it - the British to begin - 'Hindooism'. The word is Brit-created. After that it became convenient politically for Indians to also use the word as an assertion of oneness together.

So did the British influence India? Since they formed the idea of Hinduism as being one faith, created the word, and Hindus took that up to a degree - I'd say certainly!

As a P.S. I've posted the above simply to reply to the thread question and as an item of interest. I love Hinduism and respect it greatly. No 'agenda' in other words.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by New World

Just 250 years ago absolutely no-one would have thought of themselves as a 'Hindu' or used the word.

Hi New World,

Welcome to CR , and thanks for the post.

You’re absolutely right, the term Hindu and Hinduism are relatively new. The word is no where found in ancient texts. Just a few hundred years ago, people we call Hindus today did not identify themselves as such. Although the term Hindu and Hinduism may be new, there has been historically some unity between the various Hindu groups such as Shaivites, Vaishnavities, Shaktas, Smartas, etc. For one, many beliefs and practices between these groups are very similar. Second, all these groups derive their theology and philosophy from the Vedas and Agamas. All the groups have also historically considered themselves Astikas (believers in the Vedas), as opposed to Nastikas (followers of non-Vedic religions of India). Finally, since the 9th century Vedic reform movement and the emergence of the Smarta tradition of liberal Sanatana Dharma, there has been unity between various groups. The Smarta tradition has historically maintained that all groups following the Vedas are seeing God in different forms. In fact, the Smarta tradition is the very reason for the emergence of the term Hinduism under western scholars. Many of the first English-speaking Hindu scholars were Smartas. Smartism and its defining philosophy known as Advaita Vedanta are still, in many ways, what many people consider as Hinduism.

Don’t get me wrong. Personally I think the greater identity for all the followers of Vedas and Agamas as Hindus is one of the best things to have ever happened. But I think a sense of peripheral unity coalesced into a central unity under the word Hinduism, which came to be synonymous with the ancient term Sanatana Dharma.

If you trace that word back, it begins with the Muslim invaders who settled and called the people already in the subcontinent after the 'Indus' valley. The name then somewhat lapsed.

Yes. The word Hindu is derived from Sindhu, which is the Sanskrit name of the river Indus. So, people living east of the Indus were called Hindus and the land was called Hindustan. The word India is also derived from the word Indus. The name for India in ancient texts is Bharatavarsha. The name is derived from the name of the legendary unifier, Emperor Bharata. According to the Puranas, the boundaries of Bharatavarsha were the Himalayas in the north, the ocean to the south, river Sindhu to the west, and river Brahmaputra to the east. The modern Indian name for India, Bharat, and the epic Mahabharata, also take their names from Emperor Bharata.