Full text of "Hinduism Misinterpreted: Encyclopedia Britannica insults Hinduism - Amit Raj Dhawan"
See other formats
Hinduism Misinterpreted
Encyclopaedia Britannica insults Hinduism
Amit Raj DHAWAN
amitrajdhawan@gmail.com
This work has been released under Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported licence
on May 5, 2009. For details visit: http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/.
This article will highlight some of the misinterpretations of Hinduism in EncyclopEedia Britannica, many of which are very offend-
ing to any Hindu reader and those who know and respect Hinduism. The author has based this article on the contents of [1]. Text
quoted from Encyclopcedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition is in slanted red typeface. In the following lines an argu-
ment is presented, which shows and questions the biased intentions of a popular reference source like Encyclopsedia Britannica.
Information conveyed by an encyclopedia should be unbiased, impartial, based on facts, true to the greatest extent, and not any-
body's personal opinion. In this light, the article on Hinduism in Encyclopaedia Britannica has been examined. The absurd choice of
contributors of an article on Hinduism by the authorities of Encyclopaedia Britannica will also be analysed. It is felt that Britannica's
article on Hinduism is written in a sense that ill-disposes a reader towards Hinduism, whereas this is not the case with Britannica's
articles on other religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. After thought and analysis, I have been left with an impression
which can be best summarized in the following question: Why is EncyclopEedia Britannica hostile towards Hinduism?
A Master's level physics text written in English
can be read, at least most part of it, by a person
who has a Bachelor's in English. But reading a
text does not mean that it has been understood!
To understand such a text on physics, at least
one is required to have adequate knowledge of
physics. Generally, a linguist is not a physicist. In
this sense, what this person (who does not know
physics) would infer from a physics text cannot be
relied upon, and of course, before his or her find-
ings are published, they have to be scrutinized.
Religion is based on belief, and reliable informa-
tion on any particular religion can be conveyed by
a person who believes in it, has good knowledge
about it, and therefore realises it. Authorities of
EncyclopEedia Britannica had forgotten this fact
when they had to publish about Hinduism, but
they had well-remembered it when they had to
publish material on Christianity, Islam, and Ju-
daism. On the one hand they have chosen people
like Rev. Henry Chadwick to write on Christian-
ity, Fazlur Rahman, an alim, to write on Islam,
and Rabbi Lou Hackett Silberman to write on Ju-
daism, and on the other hand they have chosen
Wendy Doniger, who is criticised for her nega-
tive portrayals of Hinduism ([2], [3]), as a writer
and editor of Hinduism. From the stated writers
or editors of Hinduism in Encyclopaedia Britan-
nica ([1]), none of them is a Hindu, or of Indian
origin, or a holder of Hindu scholarship, e.g. an
acharya. To write on Christianity, Encyclopaedia
Britannica chose a Reverend (a priest of the Chris-
tian church), for Islam, an alim (a Muslim learned
in religious matters) was selected, to describe Ju-
daism, a Rabbi (a religious leader and teacher in
the Jewish religion) was opted, but for informa-
tion on Hinduism they had to choose people who
have been criticised by Hindus and academia.
Why has Encyclopaedia Britannica been partial in
its choice on religious matters?
The lengthy article on Hinduism (approx.
51 000 words) in Encyclopaedia Britannica ([1]),
does not depict Hinduism in a positive man-
ner, in general. It looks more of a critique of
Hinduism, where several concepts — fairly clear
to an average Hindu — have been predicted as
tensions and confusions. Britannica has misrep-
resented the concept and message of Hinduism,
and Hindu values have been disparaged. The
articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have
been written in a very good sense, and the evils
of these religions have been subjugated by the
way of presentation of those themes. In almost
every section of [1], unnecessary contradictions
and tensions have been mentioned with exag-
geration. Why? It seems that the ambition of
Encyclopaedia Britannica is to show Hinduism
inferior to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but
even then the question is: Why?
Britannica disrespects more than 800 million
Hindus by publishing mendacious statements
about their religion. Some of these statements
are extremely false, concocted, and rude. How
painful they are to a Hindu heart, there is no
account of that. About Lord Krishna, who is
respected and revered by all Hindus, the article
says ([1]):
Krisiina was worshipped with his adulterous consort,
Radha.
According to reputed dictionaries [4] and [5],
the word adulterous is related to adultery, and
adultery refers to sex between a married man or
woman and someone who is not their wife or hus-
band. Consort means an associate ([5]). Neither
through Hindu history nor through any reliable
Hindu belief it can be stated that Lord Krishna
had an illicit sexual relationship with Radha.
They are symbols of pure divine love. How could
the writers of this text, Arthur Llewellyn Basham,
J. A. B. van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger pub-
lish such nonsense? How could authorities of
Britannica allow this menace to Hindu belief?
Amit Raj DHAWAN
Hinduism Misinterpreted
2/4
Instead of mentioning the exemplary virtues of
Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, their righteousness
has been critically examined. Moreover, insane
and illusionary fiction has been presented as a
fact. In [1], it is stated:
The story of Rama, like that of Krishna, also has a
shadowy side.
and
The benevolence and beneficial activity of these fig-
ures (Rama, Krishna, et al.) is, however, occasionally
in doubt. Vishnu often acts deceitfully, selfishly, or
helplessly; . . .
And then starts the critical examination of virtues
of Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, and Lord Vishnu. Is
criticism the job of an encyclopedia? The sole
task of the writers of [1] was to tarnish the image
of Hinduism, its principles, its beliefs, its revered.
Has Britannica examined the shadowy sides of
Jesus, Mohammad, or Abraham?
The preposterous imagination of the writers
of [1] has presented an unacceptable statement
which shows their lack of knowledge of Sanskrit
language and Hinduism, past and present. The
compound word shivlingam is composed of words
shiv and lingam. Here shiv means Lord Shiv, and
lingam means symbol. Therefore, shivlingam
means the symbol of Shiv. Shivlingam is known
to all Hindus as a symbol of Lord Shiv. In San-
skrit language, it is common that one word has
two or more meanings. Reference [6] provides
more than 10 meanings of the word lingam. I
state two other meanings: 1) gender, and 2) the
male sex organ. Suppose a Sanskrit language
student is asked to fill a medical form in San-
skrit. There it is required to tick or cross the
box called lingam. Common sense says that in
the form to be filled, the word lingam means
gender. It would not make any sense to adapt
the second meaning (male sex organ) for this
purpose, certainly not for female applicants. To
clarify further, an example from English language
will be discussed. In English language, the word
PETER can be used in at least three different
ways ([4]). PETER can mean: 1) name of a per-
son, 2) to gradually stop or disappear, and 3) a
penis. What would it mean if you ask a person,
"Are you PETER?"? The answer is obvious, and
so is the meaning of shivlingam. In [1], it is
stated:
Yet another epiphany is that of the lingam, an up-
right rounded post, usually of stone, representing a
phallus, in which form he is worshipped throughout
India.
and
One of the most common objects of worship, whether
in temples or in the household cult, is the lingam
(phallus). Often much stylized and representing the
cosmic pillar, it emanates its all-producing energy to
the four quarters of the universe. As the symbol of
male creative energy it is frequently combined with
its female counterpart (yoni), the latter forming the
base from which the lingam rises.
Symbols can be given many meanings, but not all
are accepted meanings. The accepted meaning of
shivlingam is the the symbol of Shiv, and not the
phallus. It is weird that the foundation on which
the shivlingam rests could look like a vagina to
the writers of [1]. The meaning of shivlingam as
asserted by Britannica is not accepted by Hindus,
then why has Britannica misinformed the reader,
and hurt Hindus worldwide? Encyclopedia is not
a stage to display insanity. The authors of [1]
should restrict their epiphany only to themselves.
If shivlingam represents a phallus then all cylin-
drical objects like pens or lipsticks represent a
phallus.
The article does not hesitate to mention
Hindus "killing" people of other religions, but it
never mentions that Hindus were brutally mas-
sacred by people of other religions. At this point,
three excerpts from [1] have been quoted in the
following lines.
From time to time Hindus, especially Shaivites, took
aggressive action against Buddhism. At least two
Shaivite kings — the Hephthalite invader Mihirakula
(early 6th century) and the Bengal king Sasanka
(early 7th century) — are reported to have destroyed
monasteries and killed monks.
and
These strands converged at the end of the 20th cen-
tury in a campaign to destroy the mosque built in
1528 by a lieutenant of the Mughal emperor Babur in
Ayodhya, a city that has traditionally been identified
as the place where Rama was born and ruled. In
1992 Hindu militants from all over India, who had
been organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP;
"World Hindu Council"), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS; "National Volunteer Alliance"), and the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP; "Indian People's Party"),
destroyed the mosque in an effort to "liberate" Rama
and establish a huge "Rama's Birthplace Temple"
on the spot. In the aftermath, several thousand
people — mostly Muslims — were killed in riots that
spread across North India.
and
It is hardly the case that Muslim rule was generally
loathsome to Hindus.
In [1], there is no mention of genocide of Hin-
dus and demolition of Hindu temples by the
Mughals [7], or sabotage of Hindu schools {gu-
rukuls) during the British rule. Did Muslims,
Christians, or Jews inflict any acts of ethnic
cleansing ever? According to the articles of Is-
lam, Christianity, and Judaism in Encyclopaedia
Britannica — No! There is no mention of Hindu
suffering during the Mughal empire, neither in
the article on Hinduism ([1]) nor in the article
on Islam ([8]) in Britannica. In recent affairs, as
the 1992 Ayodhya episode has been mentioned,
there is no mention of hundreds of thousands of
Kashmiri Hindus who have been forced to leave
their homeland by Islamic militants ([9], [10]).
Ethnic cleansing of Hindus is not an issue for Bri-
tannica. If one consults an encyclopedia to know
about a religion, then he or she is interested
in the concept of the religion. Other details, as
Amit Raj DHAWAN
Hinduism Misinterpreted
3/4
stated above in this paragraph, are not required.
Still, if Britannica wants to publish such mate-
rial then the publishing should be fair, and all
religions should be treated in the same way. But
this is not the case! In Britannica's article on
Judaism ([11]), the atrocities imposed on Jews
have been well-mentioned. Given below is a text
from [11].
In the 20th century, particularly after the events sym-
bolized by Auschwitz (a Nazi death camp in Poland,
where approximately one million Jews were killed)
The Struggle of Hindus in surviving the attacks of
Muslim invaders in the past, and the present day
pain of Kashmiri Hindus has not been mentioned
anjTvhere by Britannica. Do Hindus feel pain
without pain?
There is no good mention of good deeds
of Hindus or Indians in Britannica's article. It
seems that Britannica wants to make sure that
no Hindu feels proud after reading about his or
her religion in Britannica, and people who would
like to know about Hinduism from Britannica get
the worst possible impression about Hinduism.
The wisdom of Hindu thought has been kept in
dark by Britannica, forget highlighting it. Words
are very playful, little adjustment and toning can
make a great difference. The language used to
write Hinduism in Britannica is English but this
English has a different "sense" than the English
used to write Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
The editors of [1] have ridiculed Hinduism. They
have mentioned, to a great extent maligned,
Hindu history with such confidence as if they
were witnessing the events themselves. Britan-
nica's article ([1]) talks about one of the greatest
spiritual orders in the world — Hinduism — but
there is no reference to spirituality in a spiritual
way. Britannica has well propagated the essence
of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but in case
of Hinduism, it has not. As an example of usage
of language, an excerpt from Britannica's article
on Islam ([8]) has been stated.
In Baghdad the tomb of the greatest saint of all, 'Abd
al-Qadir al-JItani, is visited every year by large num-
bers of pilgrims from all over the Muslim world.
In the above mentioned excerpt, the phrase: the
greatest saint of all, sounds very positive. There
is nothing wrong in stating your beliefs with
pride, especially when it is a presentation of your
core, your culture, your true self. But Britan-
nica did not give Hindus a chance to present
their religion, and the ones who were given the
privilege to speak, have vilified and traduced
Hinduism.
Mahatma Gandhi is called father of the na-
tion by Indians. About present-day obedience of
his teachings, Britannica says ([1]):
Although the memory of Gandhi continues to be
revered by most Indians, his policies and principles
carry little weight. The great bulk of social service
is performed by government agencies rather than by
voluntary bodies, whether Gandhian or other.
From the above mentioned statement what does
one learn about Hinduism? The statement is not
required at all in an encyclopedia article on Hin-
duism. Though it would be interesting to know
if Britannica had conducted a nation wide survey
in India to find out to what extent are Gandhi's
policies followed there. There are many organiza-
tions in India (too many to name) that have been
inspired by Gandhi and are propagating his poli-
cies and principles even today. There are many
Indian non-governmental organizations that con-
duct considerable social service, esp. at the time
of national calamities. Indians have generously
donated to the Prime Minister's National Relief
Fund (PMNRF) to help humanity I fail to com-
prehend on what grounds Britannica has made
these claims. At this point, it should be adduced
that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; "Na-
tional Volunteer Alliance") that has been termed
as a "militant" organization by Britannica, is very
much respected in India and is known for its so-
cial services. If it would have been a militant or-
ganization then it would have been permanently
banned by the Indian court of law. Fundamen-
talist nature of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS; "National Volunteer Alliance") has been
elaborated in [1] but there no mention in [1]
or [8], how the want for an only-Muslim state
led to the partition of India. This resulted in the
creation of Islamic state of Pakistan in 1947. Does
not this show the intolerant face of Islam? One
can say that there is no need criticise a religion
in an encyclopedia article about it. Fine, but this
rule should be applied equally to all religions.
Britannica has failed to do this.
The Christian church has been very well
mentioned in Britannica's article on Christianity.
In [12], an entire section with subsections has
been written on Church and social welfare. It is
mentioned how the Christian church has healed
the sick, taken care of widows and orphans, and
done good to society. Article [12] also elabo-
rates Christian beliefs in charity and prosperity
of all. Some excerpts from [12] are mentioned
below.
The Christian church has responded to the matter of
human illness both by caring for and healing the sick
and by expressing concern for them.
and
In the early church, the care of the sick was carried
out by the deacons and widows under the leadership
of the bishop. This service was not limited to mem-
bers of the Christian congregation but was directed
toward the larger community, particularly in times of
pestilence and plague.
and
The Christian congregation has traditionally cared
for the poor, the sick, widows, and orphans.
In the above mentioned lines there is nothing
to impugn; it is generally true. The contrast is
Amit Raj DHAWAN
Hinduism Misinterpreted
4/4
striking when one reads Britannica's view on Hin-
duism. There is no mention of the social work
done by Hindu organizations, e.g. provision of
free schoohng and medical care, helping the
needy, etc. There are many temples in India that
offer all visitors a complete meal for free, but
writers of [1] are blind to see the good done by
Hindu organizations and temples. In everything
they have tried to find a sexual angle. What was
guiding them? About Hindu temples, all they
have to mention is erotic art of Khajurao, where
they have once again misinterpreted the details,
and not to mention again, they have ridiculed
Hindu customs and beliefs with their false asser-
tions. In strict sense, the term devadasis, is used
for a lady who has surrendered herself to God.
About them [1] states:
The god's handmaidens (devadasis) performed before
him at regular intervals, watched by the officiants
and lay worshipers, who were his courtiers. These
women, either the daughters of devadasis or girls
dedicated in childhood, may have also served as
prostitutes. The association of dedicated prostitutes
with certain Hindu shrines can be traced back to
before the Christian era.
Are these words trying to prove the connec-
tion between Hindu shrines and prostitution?
Several cases of sexual abuse and sex scan-
dals concerning Christian clergy have been ex-
posed ([13], [14], [15]). Does [12] mention these
cases? Of course, not! Well, these things are not
"religion" and need not to be mentioned in an
encyclopedia article on religion. But is it fair that
when Britannica mentions Hinduism, it spurts
whatever ugly it feels, and when it mentions
Christianity, it hides whatever ugly it wants?
In the lines above, only a few of the many
objectionable statements of [1] have been men-
tioned and analysed. In general, Britannica's ar-
ticle on Hinduism ([1]) is absolutely deplorable.
The intention of my work is not to encourage
religious rivalry. This writing is about Hinduism;
it does not intend to show other religions in
bad light. It was the reprehensible treatment
of Hindu sentiments by Britannica that inspired
this work. Academia and related works should
endorse equality of all religions. EncyclopEedia
Britannica has been very unjust and despicable
in its writing on Hinduism. This can be felt very
strongly by anyone who knows about Hinduism.
Comparison of Britannica's articles on Hinduism,
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism explicitly asserts
that it has treated Hinduism unevenly and ab-
horrently. It is strongly needed that Britannica
replaces its mal-information about Hinduism with
information and facts that are true, honest, and
in which Hindus believe. After all, it is about
their belief. Only in this way religion, which is
based on belief, can be interpreted with the be-
lief that it is truly interpreted and not maliciously
misinterpreted.
References
[1] "Hinduism," Encyclopedia Britannica 2009
Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[2] K. Ramaswamy, A. de Nicolas, and A. Baner-
jee. Invading The Sacred: An Analysis of Hin-
duism Studies in America. New Delhi: Rupa
& Co., 2007.
[3] A. M. Braverman, "The interpretation of
gods," vol. 97, no. 2, December, 2004. [On-
line]. Available: http://magazine.uchicago.
edu/0412/features/index.shtml [Accessed:
May 4, 2009].
[4] Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
[CD-ROM]. Cambridge University Press,
2003.
[5] Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
[CD-ROM]. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated,
2003.
[6] VS. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dic-
tionary, 3rd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1965.
[7] H. Mukhia, The Mughals of India. Maiden,
MA: Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2004.
[8] "Islam," Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Stu-
dent and Home Edition, 2009.
[9] "Islamic terrorism and genocide of Kashmiri
Pandits," [Online]. Available: http://www.
kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html
[Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[10] K. P S. Gill, "The Kashmiri Pandits: An eth-
nic cleansing the world forgot," [Online].
Available: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/
kpsgill/2003/chapter9.htm [Accessed: May
4, 2009].
[11] "Judaism," Encyclopedia Britannica 2009
Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[12] "Christianity," Encyclopedia Britannica 2009
Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[13] "Timeline: US Church sex scandal," Septem-
ber 7, 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/americas/
3872499. stm [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[14] Jesmi, Amen - Oru Kanyasthreeyude At-
makatha (Autobiography of a Nun). Kot-
tayam: Di. Si. Buks, 2009.
[15] C. Landau, "Sex abuse by nuns: the
unknown story" October 2, 2007. [On-
line]. Available: http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/
hi/americas/7022694.stm [Accessed: May
4, 2009].
