Baldev Singh, PhD
316 R Glad way, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA
Hindu media has no qualms about publishing misinformation bout non-
Hindus, but when confronted with a rebuttal, the editors look the
other way and ignore it. Thus, I was not surprised when Prashant
Shah published only a small portion of my response in India Tribune
of Novenmber 2, 2002, to Niranjan Shah’s column “Letter from
grandpa” with headline “Who is a Hindu? Who is not?” – that was
published in India Tribune of September 28, 2002. Due to many
centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have
lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and
reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception,
manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers
have maligned their religion and culture and distorted their
history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting
foreign historians if it suites their purpose as Niranjan Shah has
done in his baseless and illogical rejoinder. Here is my reply to
his rejoinder:
Shah has quoted several foreign sources to prove that “Hindu” is a
corrupted version of “Sindhu.” However, he has ignored my questions
and failed to reflect on the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” The
interpretation that the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu
does not explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the
valley of this river did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is
called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body
calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.
I am not sure whether it was a Hindu or a European, who was the
first to suggest that Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to
difference in pronunciation. Nonetheless, this explanation has found
its way in European writings. Hindus find comfort in this absurd
explanation as it provides them escape from facing the reality of
their humiliating past and connects them to their mythical glorious
past, the so called Vedic period of Ram Raj. Indian writers who have
looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye don’t agree
with the interpretation of foreign writers. For example:
“The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-
25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of
this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians,
too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast
continent like country, and therefore, they have contended
themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.” This
word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that
political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of
the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian
literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky’ and Saturn.”
In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful
and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu
was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they
landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.” [R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal
Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.]
“Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a
corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name
of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is
correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of
the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says
our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those
who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” [Maharishi Shri
Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai,
published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction.]
Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in
Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo
(dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to
an other dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat – part 1 (p 615),
the meaning of the word Hindu is as under: In Turkish: chore,
raahzan and lutera (looter). In Persian: ghulam (slave), barda
(obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). The
hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is
baseless and preposterous. For example, how do the Persians who are
Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat? In
Punjabi there are many, many words of Persian origin, which start
with “s” and “sh.” For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed
(martyr), shhadat (martyrdom) shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk)
shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sja (punishment), siahi (black ink),
siah(black) and so on. The word Punjab is also derived from Persian
panch and aab (five waters).
The word Hindu may be as old as the Indus Vallay Civilization. To
find the meaning of “Hindu” one ought to look at the term “Hindu
Kush”(killer of Hindus). Who were the people, who named this
mountain range as Hindu Kush? Why these mountains were called the
killers of Hindus? As I mentioned earlier, the Indian subcontinent
was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of
Caucasian tribes from the Caucasus region. The fair skinned
Caucasian tribes who lived on the Northwest of Hindu Kush Moutain
range called the Indian subcontinent as the land of Hindus (land of
black people). The Northwest expansion of the inhabitants of Indus
Valley was prevented by of Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the plain
dwelling Indians (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they
met death due harsh terrain and heavy snow. That is how these
mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by mountain dwelling
Caucasian tribes. Once a large number of Indian people died on these
mountains due to heavy snow fall and that is how these mountains
acquired the name “Hindu Kush” – killer of the Hindus. [Bhai Kahan
Singh Nabha, Mahan Kosh, 1996 edn. p 275.]
Later on when the Caucasian tribes conquered Northwest India, they
continued using the name Hindu for native Indians. To humiliate the
natives, the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks and black
complexion, and used derogatory expressions for them. It is
astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through
thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian
languages. “Blackness” is used in bad connotation in Indian
languages. For example, in Punjabi there are expressions like, kaala
munh (black mouth, ugly or who speaks ill), kaali Jeebh ( evil
speaking tounge), kaala chore (notorious thief), kaala dhandha
(illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black
sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned
person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face)
and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the
features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramyan, the two native
devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and
a bear (Jamawant).
The Muslim conquers used the word Hindu for all the Indians.
However, Hindus, who supported the Muslim rulers in the
establishment of their authority over Hindu masses, were honored
with titles like Chaudhary, Malik, Dewan, Shah, Raizada, Rayees,
Munshi, Mahajan and others. Nowadays, the descendents of those
Hindus bear these titles with great pride as surnames. Shah did not
find the meaning of “Hindu” as black because he searched the wrong
sources. Moreover, even if Shah had found that “Hindu” means black,
he would have been hesitant to accept it, as the inferiority complex
of “blackness” is deeply imbedded in the psyche of Indians. Most
Indians except the Dalits consider themselves as the descendants of
Caucasian tribes, who ruled over India before the onslaught of
Muslims. So for Hindus to accept that “Hindu” means black would make
them the descendants of native Indians, who are black people That is
why Hindus insist that “Hindu” is the corrupted form of Sindhu.
Indians of today are the products of thousands of years of
miscegenation between Caucasian groups and native Indians. However,
Indians are reluctant to admit this fact. Excluding Kashmiris, the
complexion of the Indian population varies from ‘light tan’
to ‘ebony black’ and the majority is quite dark. Indians despise
black skin color is in spite of the fact that Indians are considered
non-white by Europeans. For instance, in Indian movies, invariably,
the hero and heroine have Caucasian features and lighter skin color
than most of the population. Moreover, in the matrimonial columns in
Indian newspapers everyone looks for a spouse of lighter color. Why
does a dark person want to marry a person of lighter color? Is it
because the dark person is not comfortable with his or her color and
want to improve the color of his or her progeny. The superiority of
white skin is deeply imbedded in the Indian psyche because ever
since the conquest of Indus Valley by Caucasians, India has been
ruled by white people like Aryans, Persians, Macedonians, Scythians,
Huns, Arabs, Turks, Afghanas, Mangols, Portugese, French and
English. When the English left, Indians crowned Jawahar Lal Nehru,
who was the fairest among the Hindu leaders. In the words of a
socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, Nehru practiced both racism and
casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook (Telegraph,
Calcutta, November 21, 1987). In a revealing passage about
his “making,” Nehru wrote, “Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-
conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may
be, generations of Brahmans. I cannot get rid of that past
inheritance.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography (1936)), 1980
edn., p 596.] Being a fair skinned Brahman he rode roughshod over
other leaders. The so-called iron man Patel or president Rajindra
Parsad did not dare to challenge Nehru over his policies. The reason
could be that both of them belonged to lower castes and had very
dark complexion. It is intriguing why Mahatma Gandhi, a Gujrati
Bania with caricature personality, insisted upon making Nehru his
heir apparent, while ignoring others who were equally qualified. Was
it Nehru’s fair skin, which impressed Gandhi the most? Similarly,
why couldn’t the Congress Party find a single person in the whole
country worthy enough to be its leader? It turned to Sonia Gandhi,
who like her late husband does not understand or speak Hindi very
well. What qualifications distinguish her from other Congress
leaders? Is it her fair skin? In Pashto, the language of the
dominant Afghan tribe of Pashtoons, Hindu is pronounced as Indu (h
is silent). The Greeks called the people of Indus Valley Indos or
Indus and hence, the name India. The Muslims called it Hindustan.
Bharat or Bhartvarsha may be the name of a mythical kingdom in Hindu
scriptures or of a small principality located in the state of Uttar
Pardesh but it was never the name of the Indian subcontinent.
Whereas Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu, the names of the
other three religions, Buddhism, Janism and Sikhism founded on the
Indian subcontinent are derived from Indian words with noble
meanings: “Budh” (enlightenment), “Jan”[victorious (over vices)]
and “Sikh”(learner), respectively.
Does it make any sense for Indians who are never tired of talking
about the glory of their past, their religion and their civilization
to call themselves “Hindus” when this word is not found in any Hindu
text? The foreigners gave this derogatory label “Hindu” to the
people of the Indian subcontinent. What right or justification do
the champions of “Hindutva” have to apply this derogatory
label “Hindu” to others, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists? Have Hindus no
sense of shame or decency? It’s no wonder that Sanskrit does not
have the equivalents of words like jameer (conscience), emaan (moral
conviction) and vfa
(fidelity).
India will remain mired in religious, caste, linguistic and ethnic
strifes as long as Indians don’t come to terms with their past
history objectively and learn from it.
