Indra and Krishna
Shrikant G. Talageri
Today is Gokul Ashtami (a major festival in Mumbai and
Maharashtra, also called dahi-kala or dahi-handi).
My last two articles happened to be about Indra, so it struck me that
today called for an article on Indra (to complete three articles, or
should I say a “trilogy”) and Krishna (to pay tribute to the
festival today).
Indra and Krishna somehow seem to represent two
different eras of Hindu Gods, perhaps best illustrated in modern
times by the two extreme sects, of which one worships Krishna but would
never worship Indra, and the other which worships Indra (in
the Vedic way) but would not (or so I assume) worship Krishna:
the followers of ISKCON and the Arya Samaj respectively.
Although, to put it in another way, Hindus in general worship Krishna
but do not really “worship” Indra except automatically in the
course of performing or sponsoring some Vedic rituals (to do with sanskaras
like birth, thread ceremony, marriage, death, etc.; or other occasions, such as
inaugurating a house or business, where a yajña is customarily
performed).
But there is a historical reason behind this. ISKCON at least
is indirectly aware of this, since a question on Google “Does
ISKCON worship Indra?” produced the following reply:
“No, ISKCON does not
worship Lord Indra.
Within
the theological framework of the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (ISKCON) and the broader Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition, Lord
Krishna is recognized as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Lord Indra is
understood to be a deva (often translated by ISKCON as a
"demigod"), who acts as an empowered universal administrator
appointed by Krishna to oversee the heavenly planets, rain, and meteorological
forces. [1, 2, 3]
Why ISKCON Does Not Worship Indra
·
The Precedent Set by Krishna
(Govardhana Lila): ISKCON's stance on Indra is directly rooted in the Srimad
Bhagavatam narrative of the Govardhana Hill. In this pastime, a young
Krishna convinced the residents of Vrindavan to stop their traditional annual
sacrifice (yajna) to Lord Indra. Krishna taught that they should instead
honor Mount Govardhana and the local environment, demonstrating that direct
devotion to the Supreme Lord supersedes the worship of universal
administrators.”
In my books and articles, I have frequently
described Hinduism as a vast and overspreading banyan tree
consisting of all the religions, philosophies, spiritual viewpoints and
sets of religious beliefs and rituals born in India, and pointed out that Vedic
religion is not the root of Hinduism, but only one
single branch of this Hindu banyan tree.
In my very first book in 1993, I had pointed
out that even according to the entrenched AIT version of Indian history,
which describes “Vedic” as “Aryan” and “non-Vedic”
as “non-Aryan” and takes the “Vedic Aryans” to be
originally intruders into an India originally inhabited by “non-Aryans”,
Hinduism is:
“a fusion of
the "Aryan" and the ["non-Aryan" or] "Dravidian" religions. Suniti Kumar
Chattcrji has listed some of the features of Hinduism, which are supposed to be
of "non-Aryan" origin (mainly "Dravidian", sometimes
"Austric").'
As a study of
the material, presented therein, will show, almost every aspect of Hinduism as
we know it today, certainly every feature central to the religion, is supposed
to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. The "Aryans" are supposed to be
"worshippers of the elements" (fire, air, water, sky). The ritual
worship of fire, in the form of yajña, is supposed to be the "Aryan"
form of worship.
1. The entire
system of idol-worship, which today forms the very essence of popular Hinduism,
is supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. Thus, the worship of
consecrated idols is of "pre-Aryan" origin, whether of
a. the liṅgam;
or
b. "rude
blocks of stone" with eyes painted on them; or
c. roughly, or
finely, carved, or cast, images of stone, metal or some other material.
The concept of
grihadevatas and grāmadevatās (family deities and village deities) is of
"pre-Aryan" origin. The entire process of idol-worship is of
"pre-Aryan" origin:
a. treating
the idols as living beings; bathing, dressing and feeding them, putting them to
sleep, etc.
b. performing pūjā
by offering flowers, water, and fruits, bananas, coconuts, clothes and
ornaments to the idols;
c. performing āratī
by waving lights in front of the idols;
d. performing
music and dance before the idols;
e. partaking
of prasada, of food offered to the idols. The entire system of idol-temples and
pilgrim-centres, with sacred tanks and bathing-ghats, and of temple festivals,
with palanquins and chariots, is of "pre-Aryan" origin.
2. The use of
sandalpaste, turmeric, and vermilion (sindur), for smearing on the idols, and
on the foreheads of worshippers, is of "pre-Aryan" origin. From this,
it follows that two very fundamental outward symbols of Hinduism today, are
also of "pre-Aryan" origin:
a. The tilak
marks (of whatever material) on the forehead.
b. The sacred
saffron color, and, by implication, also the saffron flag.
3. The idea of
soul, and the concept of transmigration of souls, and rebirth, is supposed to
be of "pre-Aryan" origin. This concept forms a very fundamental
aspect of Hindu philosophy, and is the one concept accepted by all the schools
of Hindu philosophy (except the cārvaka and other nāstika schools of thought), even
including the Buddhist and the Jain [and Sikh] schools of thought.
4. The
enumeration of the days by the phases of the moon, the tithis, is also supposed
to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. The importance of the pañcāṅga (the
annual calendar based on the tithis) in ritualistic Hinduism can never be
underestimated.
5. Zoomorphic
aspects of Hinduism are also supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin.
These cover;
a. The worship
of certain animals, birds and reptiles;
b. The concept
of God coming down to earth in the form of zoomorphic ayataras (Narasiritha,
Kurma, Maisya, Varaha; and, incidentally, the very concept of God coming down
to earth in the form of avararas is itself of "pre-Aryan" origin).
c. The concept
of every God and Goddess having a [specific animal as a] "vehicle"
(Visṇu's Garuḍ a, Ganeśa's mouse, Kārtikeya's peacock, Śiva's bull, Durgā's
lion, etc).
6.
Of all the Hindu Gods and Goddesses, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva constitute the
trinity. From another angle, Śiva, Viṣṇu, and Śakti (the Mother Goddess, also
called Chita, Durgā, Ambā, Pārvatī, etc) constitute a trinity, since all [major]
Hindu sects are broadly classified into Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, and Śākta. Ganeśa is
the God whom it is considered necessary to invoke before any other God. Kṛṣṇa
is probably the single most popular God among the Hindu masses.
Of
these, Brahmā − the only God who is very little worshipped, having hardly one
or two known temples devoted to him in the whole of India − is presumably the
only "Aryan" God. All the others are supposed to be either wholly or partially
"Dravidian". Śiva, Śakti, Ganeśa are all supposed to be wholly
"Dravidian". Viṣṇu is "partly Aryan, a form of the Sun God, and
partly at least the deity is of Dravidian affinity as a Sky-God whose color was
of the blue sky. (cf. Tamil viṇ 'sky' and the Middle IA or Prakrit form of Viṣṇu,
which was Viṇhu, Veṇhu).". Kṛṣṇa
also "represents, partly at least, a Dravidian God of Youth, who has later
been identified with Viṣṇu as an incarnation of his." Kārtikeya and
Hanumān are also of "pre-Aryan" origin.
In addition to
all the above, there are many minor mythological and philosophical concepts,
and socio-religious rituals (for example, the concept of the "evil
eye", and rituals for its removal) which are supposed to be of
"pre-Aryan" origin. Haṭhayoga and Āyurveda are also supposed to be
"pre-Aryan" in origin. To all this, one may add two more aspects,
referred to in the previous chapter
1. Hinduism
has several sacred cities and many sacred shrines, rivers, mountains, lakes and
tanks, all of which are located in India. It is obvious that the
"Aryans" could not have brought these along with them. Therefore,
these must have been sacred to the “pre-Aryans" as well.
2. Hinduism
uses a very wide range of materia botanica (coconuts, bananas,
rice, sandalwood, turmeric, etc. ), in its rituals and ceremonies, not one of
which is alleged to have been brought in by the "Aryans" from
outside. Therefore, these materials must have been used in those very rituals
by the "pre-Aryans" as well.
After all
this, how much remains, of Hinduism, which can be classified as
"Aryan"? According to the Aryan invasion theory itself, Hinduism is
practically a "pre-Aryan", and more specifically, a
"Dravidian" religion adopted by the "Aryans".” (TALAGERI 1993: )
I am in agreement
with almost all of the above (except perhaps a few minor points where the AIT
scholars go berserk, such as identifying Viṣṇu as "partly Aryan, a form of
the Sun God, and partly at least the deity is of Dravidian affinity as a
Sky-God whose color was of the blue sky. (cf. Tamil viṇ 'sky' and the Middle IA
or Prakrit form of Viṣṇu, which was Viṇhu, Veṇhu)" and Kṛṣṇa as "partly
at least, a Dravidian God of Youth, who has later been identified with Viṣṇu as
an incarnation of his". Or even Śiva as “wholly or partially
"Dravidian"”.
And of course,
the main terminology of classification of all these elements as “pre-Aryan”
or even “non-Aryan” (or specifically “Dravidian”) is wrong: since it automatically
classifies all non-Vedic (i.e. non-Pūru) elements
in Hinduism as being “pre-Aryan-invasion” or “non-Indo-European”.
The first term “pre-Aryan”
is definitely wrong since the prefix “pre-” automatically and wrongly
assumes an Aryan Invasion.
And the second
term “non-Aryan” (or specifically “Dravidian”) is
definitely wrong since it automatically and wrongly assumes that all
non-Vedic (i.e. non-Pūru) elements in Hinduism
are “non-Aryan” (in the sense of “non-Indo-European”).
Some of the Vedic
elements are indeed part of a broader Indo-European religious
spectrum shared by the Indo-European groups to the west
of the Vedic (i.e. Pūru) people: i.e by the Anu and the Druhyu
people who later migrated out from India and took the other 11 branches
of Indo-European languages to their historical habitats,
But many of the non-Vedic
(i.e. non-Pūru) elements in Hinduism (not found in the
IE branches outside India) could originally be either:
1. Inner-Indo-European
elements, i.e. elements found in the Indo-European groups to the east
of the Vedic/Pūru people: i.e
the Yadu, Turvasu, Ikṣvāku and possibly some others.
2. Austric or Dravidian
or other non-Indo-European elements from within India to
the east and south of the various Indo-European
groups in India.
In my article “A
Concise Guide to Writing Fiction Set in the Mature Harappan = New Rigvedic
Period 2600-1700 BCE”, I had written:
“The Hindu
religion is an amalgam of the religious features of all the different parts of
India, not all of which are derived from the Vedas or the Vedic
religion (which was only the religion of the first three northwestern areas
named above):
1. This
northwestern religion is represented in the religion of the Anus (as in Iranian
Zoroastrianism), the Druhyus (as in the Druidic religion of the Celts, and the
Romuvan religion of the Lithuanians) and the Vedic texts of the Pūrus; and
consisted of (a) worship of the elements, (b) the performance of
fire-sacrifices, and (c) the composition and recitation of hymns.
[Being more
systematically organized, and having developed a unique and unparalleled
technique of recording its sacred hymns by a mnemonic system known as the ghaṇa-pāṭha,
this Pūru religion spread all over the rest of India in the next few millennia,
absorbing, and in fact losing itself in, the diverse religions of the other
"descendants of Manu", leading to the formation of modern-day
Hinduism: the Parliament of all the religions of all the Descendants of Manu].
2. The
religion of the Yadus to their south in particular was more naturalistic, and
consisted of the worship of mountains (e.g. govardhan parvata), forests
and groves, trees and animals, etc. This was probably a basic feature of the
kind of religion which prevailed over most of the rest of India, especially the
areas of the eastern Pūrus.
3. The
religion of the Ikṣvākus to the east was more deep or spiritual, based on
intuition, thought, logic and debate, and it is in their regions that we
find the seeds of most of the philosophical and spiritual aspects of present-day
Hinduism, including the Upaniṣads, Buddhism, Jainism, and even materialistic
philosophies like the Cārvāka.
4. The areas
of the Austric speaking people to the east contributed much of present-day
Tantric rites and beliefs, and perhaps even the concept of reincarnation.
5. The areas
of the Dravidian speaking people to the south (with perhaps some inputs from
the Austric speakers of the east) contributed what is today the most central
aspect of Hinduism: idol-worship, with all its accompanying features.”
In my article “Are Indian Tribals Hindus”, in the section on What
Is Hinduism, I had described the Vedic (Pūru) religion as
follows:
“In India, as in the rest of the world, religion was
originally a tribal affair. Tribes in every corner of India, as of the
inhabited world of the time, were followers of different tribal religions. As
in other parts of the world, the rise of civilization in one particular part of
India led to the development of one particular kind of religion among the
different tribes and people spread out over a certain area. This area was the
north and northwest, covering particularly northern Pakistan, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi,
Himachal Pradesh and the western half of U.P., and extending to some
neighbouring areas. The area still covered many different tribes, notably the
conglomerates of tribes known to traditional Indian history as the Druhyu, Anu
and Puru. In present-day linguistic terms, this could be described as the
Proto-Indo-European area.
The religion which developed in this area concentrated
on worship of the elements (the sun, moon, clouds, rain, sky, earth, rivers,
etc.) and worshipped the Gods perceived in these elements through sacrifices
offered through the medium of fire, and through the medium of sounds couched in
the form of hymns. This religion is found in the Rigveda (the religious book of
the Puru tribes), the Zend Avesta (the religious book of the main groups among
the Anu tribes who migrated westwards into Afghanistan), and in the religious
practices of the ancient European priests, mainly the Celtic Druids (emigrants
to Europe from among the Druhyu tribes). Other versions of these elements with
more developed mythologies are found in the other European religions (Greek,
Teutonic, Lithuanian, etc.).
In India, after the emigration of the Anu and Druhyu
tribes, the religion of the Purus, with its highly developed priesthood and
rituals, spread over the rest of the country along with Vedic culture. As the
religions of the different tribes all over the country converged into the
increasingly diluted Puru religion, the original Puru (Vedic) rituals and myths
increasingly came to occupy the position of a nominal upper layer in a new
multi-layered and multi-facetted religion which was rapidly becoming the common
Pan-Indian religion of the sub-continent. When this pan-Indian religion
came to be known as Hinduism is a matter of irrelevant dispute. That it is
known as Hinduism is an indisputable fact.
But there was a big difference in the spread of
Hinduism all over India and the spread of Christianity all over the world.
Unlike Christianity, which demonised the Gods, beliefs and rituals of the
religions which it sought to uproot, destroy and supplant, Hinduism
accepted and internalised the Gods, beliefs and rituals of the tribal religions
which converged into it. The result is that today the most popular Hindu
deities in every single part of India are originally tribal Gods: whether
Ayyappa of Kerala, Murugan of Tamilnadu, Balaji of Andhra, Vitthala
(originally) of Karnataka (Vithoba of Maharashtra), Khandoba of Maharashtra,
Jagannatha of Orissa, etc., etc., or the myriad forms of the Mother Goddess,
with thousands of names, in every nook and corner of India: every single local
(originally tribal) God and Goddess is revered by every Hindu in every corner
of India, in the form of the kuladevata, the grihadevata or the gramadevata. In
time, of course, myths were formed nominally associating many of these deities
with one or the other of the main Gods and Goddesses of Puranic Hinduism as
their manifestations, these Puranic Gods themselves being additions from
different parts of India to the Hindu pantheon (or originally Vedic Gods like
Vishnu and Rudra with basic characteristics adopted from the other local and
tribal deities). But these associations were not an imposition “from above”,
they were the result of popular local myth-making and part of the consolidation
of the national popularization of the local deities: the deities retained their
local names, forms, rituals and customs, and became all-India deities, objects
of pilgrimages from distant areas.
But it is not only in respect of “Gods” and
“Goddesses” that Hinduism freely and respectfully adopted from other tribes and
religions: even the most basic concepts of the Hindu religion are originally
elements adopted from the tribal and local religions from every part of India.
The original Puru (Vedic) layer of religion which forms the pan-Indian umbrella
of Hinduism was originally more or less the religion depicted in the Rigveda:
the worship of Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Agni, Soma, the Maruts and Ashvins, and
other specifically Vedic deities (including Vishnu and Rudra, who later become
the most important Puranic Gods), and the main religious rituals were the Agni
rituals (homa, yadnya, etc.) and the Soma rituals. The Soma
rituals are completely defunct today (in fact, no-one knows the exact identity
of Soma), the Agni rituals are still performed, but only during major
ceremonies (birth, death, weddings, ritual inaugurations of houses, etc.) and
on other major occasions, and the major Vedic Gods are minor figures of Puranic
stories.
Practically every single basic feature of Hinduism
today was adopted from the religious beliefs and rituals of the other,
originally tribal, religious traditions of the people from every single corner
of India as they all converged into Hinduism. To begin with, Idol-worship which
is absolutely the central feature of Hinduism…… This entire system in all its
variations was adopted from the various practices of the people of eastern,
central and southern India, along with the Gods and idols themselves.
All the basic philosophical concepts of mainstream
Hinduism are likewise adopted from the tribal and local populations of
different parts of India: the concept of rebirth and transmigration of souls,
the concept of auspicious moments based on the panchanga and the tithis,
the worship of particular trees and plants, animals, birds and reptiles, of
particular forests, groves, mountains and rivers; the worship of ancestors in
elaborate ceremonies, etc., etc.
The fact is, Hinduism can never be in true conflict
with any other religion (other than the two predator Abrahamic religions which
themselves choose conflict with all other religions) since it has no particular
God, Ritual or Dogma to impose on the followers of other religions. In itself,
Hinduism contains the seeds of every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable
with all streams of thought, and not necessarily to do with the worship of
“Gods”. In Hinduism, we find all kinds of atheistic and materialistic
philosophies, the most well known being the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka,
who believed that there is only one life, that there is no such thing as an
afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and that our only purpose in life
should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains. The very basic
texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of agnostic philosophies, from
the Rigvedic Nasadiya Sukta (X.129. 6-7, which says: “Who verily knows and who
can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The
Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first
came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it
all or did not form it? He whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he
verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.”) to the Upanishadic speculations
which reject everything, after deep discussion, with the phrase “neti, neti”:
“not this, not this”, i.e., “no, this is still not the ultimate truth”. And
then of course, there is every kind of deistic, henotheistic, pantheistic,
polytheistic, and every other kind of -theistic philosophy, including even (but
not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus the hatred of “other” false
religions and false Gods, and the concepts of permanent Heaven for believers
and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of Abrahamic monotheism).
This is not to say that intolerant strands are not
found in Hindu texts: among the countless philosophies that flowered within
Hinduism there could be found stray voices of intolerance and hatred, but they
are just that: stray voices in the wilderness, which never became the voices of
mainstream Hinduism, unlike in the Abrahamic religions, where they represent
the Only Voice.
Hinduism thus represents the opposite end of
the spectrum from the Abrahamic religions: of the four possible attitudes
towards other religions and religious beliefs (respect, tolerance, indifference
and hatred), Hinduism represents respect for all other religions and streams of
thought and philosophy, while Christianity (as also Islam) represents hatred.
This is the central thread of Hinduism: even the Manu Smriti enjoins that when
a king wins a victory over an enemy king and enters his (i.e. the enemy)
kingdom, the first thing he must do is to pray and worship at the feet of the
deity of that king and kingdom. The Bhagawad Gita, even as it asks Arjuna (and
presumably mankind in general) to abandon all other dharmas (i.e. duties, not
religions) and surrender to the Supreme Entity (an abstract concept although
nominally represented by “Bhagwan Shrikrishna” here), assures him that whatever
form of worship he indulges in, that worship reaches Him (i.e. that Supreme
Entity) and Him alone – a far cry from the “One True” God and “One True” form
of worship as opposed to other “false” Gods and “false” forms of worship
classified by Christianity (and Islam).
This is the reason a Hindu would not think twice before bowing his
head in genuine reverent worship before an idol of Osiris or Isis in Egypt,
Quetzalcoatl or Kulkulcan in Central America, or Kuan Yin in China (or, indeed,
before visiting churches and dargahs, not realizing the difference between
non-Abrahamic and Abrahamic religious entities). This is the reason why the
Zoroastrians who fled Iran from Abrahamic persecution, and the Jews who fled
ancient Palestine, found safe, respectful and helpful refuge only in Hindu
India and nowhere else. And this is also the reason why the tribal Gods and
tribal religions in different parts of India which, either due to isolated
location or out of choice, did not choose to merge, or merge fully, into the
greater pan-Indian Hindu entity (where, in any case, their distinctive
characteristics would only have been respected, preserved and popularised
everywhere) continued to freely maintain their distinctive identities to this
day – i.e. till the advent of the predatory missionaries.”
In my article “Rebirth orTransmigration in the Rigveda” also I
wrote:
“As I have pointed out in my books and so many of my articles, it
is not at all a fact that all of Hinduism, in all its aspects,
has origins in the Rigveda or in the Vedic texts. In fact beyond the sacred
language, the aspects of hymn-composing and chanting, the worship of the
elements and the elemental Gods of Nature, and the worship of fire in the form
of the sacrificial fire of the yajña ─ all of which were
central to the religion of the Vedic Pūrus, the
proto-Iranian Anus and the proto-European Druhyu (druids) ─
almost everything in Hinduism is derived from the culture of the interior
peoples of India: from the Ikṣvākus of eastern UP and Bihar,
the Yadus-Turvasus of central and western India, and
the Dravidian speakers of the south and
the Austric speakers of the east. Hinduism is not a religion
derived from the religious culture of one group of Indians of the northwestern
parts of India, it is a vast and spreading banyan tree covering and including
all the different religious aspects, deities, concepts, philosophies and
rituals of all the different parts of India.”
To put it in short: the original Vedic religion of the Pūrus
(shared with the Anus and Druhyus to their west), after the
emigration of the Anus and Druhyus (who also, in the course of
their various histories, borrowed different elements from the different
religions that they encountered outside India), slowly spread all
over the country, absorbing different elements (as, for example, listed at the
beginning of this article) from the Inner Indo-Europeans, Austric
language speakers, Dravidian language speakers,
and many others, and the end result is what we today call Hinduism.
This was a long process, and while we have all the facts
as well as the results before us, we naturally do not have detailed
recorded descriptions of this long and gradual process by which the Pūru
Vedic religion spread all over India and became the “the pan-Indian
umbrella of Hinduism” –
a Hinduism in which almost all the important aspects and elements
were originally non-Vedic (non-Pūru).
As I have pointed out in various articles, the spread of the Pūru
Vedic religion all over India in the process of becoming Hinduism
was not like the destructive hate-inspired spread of Christianity and Islam
all over the world. It was more like the peaceful spread of Buddhism and
Jainism all over India (with the difference that Buddhism and Jainism,
did not similarly incorporate local religious elements within themselves − at least in India,
though in East Asia, the spread did incorporate local
elements).
But however peaceful the process, individuals being individuals, there
must have been stray exceptional elements on both sides: with some persons
trying to enforce elements of the Vedic religion and some persons
resisting such enforcement. As I wrote in the articles quoted above: “This
is not to say that intolerant strands are not found in Hindu texts: among the
countless philosophies that flowered within Hinduism there could be found stray
voices of intolerance and hatred, but they are just that: stray voices in the
wilderness, which never became the voices of mainstream Hinduism, unlike in the
Abrahamic religions, where they represent the Only Voice”.
The Pūru Vedic religion
consisted mainly of “(a)
worship of the elements, (b) the performance of fire-sacrifices, and (c) the composition
and recitation of hymns”, while the Yadu religion “was more naturalistic, and
consisted of the worship of mountains
(e.g. govardhan parvata), forests and groves, trees and animals,
etc. This was probably a basic feature of the kind of religion which prevailed
over most of the rest of India, especially the areas of the eastern
Pūrus”.
The whole govardhan parvata incident very
likely represents a memory of an event where a section of Yadus at a
particular point resisted the enforced worship of the Pūru God Indra
in place of their own govardhan parvata, and provides
recorded evidence (at the very starting point of this process, in
western Uttar Pradesh) of the whole process by which the Pūru
Vedic religion spread all over India,
incorporated all the local religious elements
from all over India within itself (to the extent
that those borrowed elements more and more came to replace the elements of the
original Pūru Vedic religion as the dominant features of
the spreading religion), with the elements of the original Pūru Vedic
religion finally remaining only as the nominal (or elite) “pan-Indian
umbrella of Hinduism”.
