Questions about Hindus, Hindi, and Hinduism...

[jaimest]

I hope this is the correct forum.

Lately, we have all been getting the message that the words “Islam”, “Muslim”, and “Arab” are not synonyms. While I have known that for a long time, I still have a lot of trouble distinguishing “Hindu”, “Hindi” and “Hinduism”.

Now I know that “Hindu” is an ethnic designation describing many (but certainly not all) Indians. “Hindi” is a Indo-Aryan* language spoken by many Indians. “Hinduism” is a religion; actually a composite of many individual religious and cultural pratices found in India.

Having said all that, here is where I get confused. Are only Hindi speakers Hindus? Are people who speak Gujurati, Bengali, or some other Indo-Aryan language Hindus as well? And the southern Indian Dravidian people practice “Hinduism”, yet I don’t believe they are considered Hindu. Are they non-Hindu Hinduists? And can a “Hindu” by ethnicity remain a Hindu if they convert to another religion, or become agnostic/atheist? For instance, can one speak of a Buddhist Hindu, a Sikh Hindu. I suppose that would be similar to the “Jewish Christian” or “Jewish Atheist” debate.

And is “Indo-Aryan” still used by linguists?

[Colibri]

Merriam-Webster’s says Hindu may mean either

1. an adherent of Hinduism
2. a native or inhabitant of India

Certainly definition 1 is by far the dominant one today. And no, you don’t have to speak Hindi to be a Hindu in the religious sense. Hinduism is quite strong in south India where other languages are dominant.

By definition 2, one could refer to many Muslims, Sikhs, Jainists, and Christians as “Hindus,” but I doubt that many of them would accept that. This “ethnic” definition, I think, is pretty much obsolete. It’s archaic, and no longer applies. It’s more-or-less like referring to India as “Hindustan.”

[Houlihan]

First, my credentials, such as they are - I had a double major in college, with one major being “non-western studies”. My concentration was India, and I took Hindi as my foreign language. But I’m Irish-American from Ohio, so I would obviously defer to someone with direct knowledge.

With that said, my understanding is the same as Colibri’s, in that the western designation “Hindu” now primarily refers to religion as opposed to ethnicity. However, there is incredible regional and theoretical diversity in the Hindu faith, so “Hindu” and “Hinduism” are extremely general terms. The faith of the Dravidians in the south and the faith of the Aryans up north are very different animals. As best I recall, subject to correction, the Dravidians’ form of Hinduism is rather naturalistic, featuring worship of the male and female essence (the Lingam and the Yoni) and local dieties, while the Northerners’ version centers more on worship of the Trimurti(Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma) of Hindu dieties, as well as the philosophical contemplation of the Brahman and Atman. Nevertheless, some of the most famous images of Hinduism, such as Shiva Nataraja (the bronze statutes of a many-armed god dancing in a ring of fire), were originally generated in the south during the Chola period (c. 900 A.D.). So it’s tough to generalize, but my understanding is that each of these forms of Hinduism (along with many others) are considered both by the Hindus and the West to be Hinduism.

With regard to the term “Indo-Aryan”, I have seen that as a description of the peoples who spread through the north of the subcontinent, meeting up with the darker-skinned Dravidians in the south. I have seen the term “Indo-European” used to describe the family of languages which includes Hindi/Sanskrit and the Romance languages (Latin, Italian, French, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese). It was shocking, once you transliterate Hindi words out of the Devangari alphabet and into a phonetic english, just how similar Hindi is to Latin, both in vocabulary and in grammatical rule.

I hope a Hindu logs on and checks my accuracy. I apologize if I have mangled the history of India too badly above, because I haven’t used what I learned in many years.

[xash]

ok, IANAH (Hindu), however i am an Indian.

so here’s my take:

The definition for a Hindu would follow Colibri’s first definition. That is, a person who follows the religion of Hinduism is known as a Hindu.

Hinduism is the religion and its beliefs and systems etc.

Hindi is the national language of the country of India. As an aside, English is the second language and is recognized alongside Hindi as an official language of the country.

Are only Hindi speakers Hindus?

No. Hindi is the official language of the country. Almost everyone, inlcuding a large non-hindu population, speaks it.

Also, every Hindu might not speak Hindi, and yet be a Hindu, because India has about 200 or so recognized languages and 100s of unrecognized languages. So it might be possible for a Hindu to not speak Hindi at all.

Are people who speak Gujurati, Bengali, or some other Indo-Aryan language Hindus as well?

Most are. But definitely not all. It’s like saying do people who speak English follow Christianity.

And the southern Indian Dravidian people practice “Hinduism”, yet I don’t believe they are considered Hindu.

Those who practice Hinduism would be considered thus. I’d go with Houlihan’s answer to this question.

Are they non-Hindu Hinduists?

What?? Either i haven’t understood your question, or i understand it to mean are there Hindus who are not Hindus. Then the answer would be No. But if you mean are there people who study the religion or support the religion without being part of it, then i would guess a Yes.

And can a “Hindu” by ethnicity remain a Hindu if they convert to another religion, or become agnostic/atheist?

Hindu by ethnicity seems to me to be a reduntant definition. But the broad answer would be No. If you convert from one religion to another or if you decide to be an agnostic or an atheist you would not remain a Hindu in my view.

e.g. I am born and brought up in India, of Indian parentage, and therefore ethnicity. My father is a Hindu by birth, but is now an atheist, as i am too. So when i gotta fill up official documents, my religion is filled in as — (dash) and not Hindu. This does create a problem in this country, where being an atheist is largely considered taboo, except in the more metropolitan areas.

For instance, can one speak of a Buddhist Hindu, a Sikh Hindu. I suppose that would be similar to the “Jewish Christian” or “Jewish Atheist” debate.

my answer would be No. But you’ve answered the question already.

And is “Indo-Aryan” still used by linguists?

I’m sure it is. But more in historical contexts than in the now context.

It’s more-or-less like referring to India as “Hindustan.”

i beg to differ with this statement of Colibri’s.

India is referred to as Hindustan by the entire country. Hindus and non-Hindus alike. It has a much greater patriotic appeal, in name, than does India, for most Indians; even for non-Hindus. Partly because it is the name used in a lot of our patriotic songs, and the term “Jai Hind” is used in our national anthem and sung proudly by almost all Indians in the country ( and abroad ), regardless of their religious affiliations.

Bharat is also another name for India.

[Wendell_Wagner]

According to Ethnologue:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?name=Indo-European&subid=629

Indo-Aryan is a sub-sub-family of the Indo-European language family. It is a very large sub-sub-family though, since it contains 210 of the 443 Indo-European languages. Some of these languages are not well recorded and their relationships are not well understood.

[king_of_spain]

*Originally posted by jaimest *
**Having said all that, here is where I get confused. Are only Hindi speakers Hindus? Are people who speak Gujurati, Bengali, or some other Indo-Aryan language Hindus as well? **

I can offer the anecdotal evidence that a good friend of mine’s family is both Hindu and are native speakers of (I belive) Telegu - definitely not Hindi.