What is “Hinduism”? The most common response is that Hinduism is a religion, which begs the question, what exactly does “religion” mean?

According to the dominant framework, “religion” is primarily comprised of belief in God(s), his revelation in the form of scripture(s), beliefs and actions guided by these revealed scriptures, and so on. King (2009, pp.105-6) highlights certain dominant assumptions associated with the concept of “religion,” such as the belief that something resembling “religion,” which is distinct from other aspects of existence, can be traced in every culture of the world, and that these “religious” aspects are guided by belief/faith in god(s) or other truth claims that every member of that “religious” community is expected to affirm and these “religious” beliefs and practices of that community are guided by scriptures, which are to be taken more in a literal or cognitive sense rather than in a ritualistic way, apart from these elements, what dominates the conception of “religion” is the idea that “religion” on one hand exhibits exclusiveness with other religions, on the other hand, it unifies the community of believers.

This framework of “religion” appears to be inadequate for conceptualising Hinduism and many other non-Abrahamic “religions,” in which belief is not central, faith is not essential, boundaries are not defined because they are more ritual/practice centric, and the elements of religion are not necessarily differentiated from the larger socio-economic structure.

Hence, for the purpose of this essay, the functional definition of “Hinduism” is as per the Prototype Theory of George Lakoff (as cited in Flood, 1996, p.7), who “maintains that categories do not have rigid boundaries, but rather there are degrees of category membership.” Hence, a prototype model of Hinduism can be visualised as a permeable socio-economic and cultural whole, where socio-economic and cultural aspects of the Brahmanical hierarchical caste structure are dominant but not essential, either in parts or as a whole, hence allowing for the existence of multitudes of permutations and combinations within the rubric of what has come to be identified as Hinduism. It’s in this sense that the interactions between “Hinduism” and “tribal cultures” have to be analyzed.

What distinguished Hinduism from tribal cultures was not a codified set of beliefs or practices, but rather the geographical terrain in which these two cultures coexisted. Sontheimer (1994, pp. 121–140) identifies these two terrains as Vana (forest) linked with tribal cultures and Kshetra (constituted of more settled terrain, like villages and urban areas) linked with what can be identified as Hinduism. For Sontheimer and some others, Hinduism marked a continuum of elements from the Vana to Kshetra, though with varied changes. This continuum is reflected in the incorporation of seemingly tribal deities, myths, and rituals within the fold of Hinduism, such as the worship of Jagannath, or the story of Chenchu Lakshmi of Andhra Pradesh.

Chattopadhyay (2004, p. 175) identifies these two terrains as Aranya and Janapada, where Aranya is the same as the Vana of Sontheimer, while Janapada represented a territory dominated by the Brahmanical social order. However, both scholars have correctly noted the recurring and mutual influences of both terrains on each other, including in the domain of what might be characterised as “religious.” And these interactions were facilitated in a variety of ways.

While possibly the largest factor for such interaction was the gradual expansion of the Kshetra and the selective incorporation of the elements of the Vana by the socio-economic and political structure of the Kshetra as emphasized by Sontheimer (1994, p. 164), there were certainly other factors too, which facilitated this interaction. In his study of the Juang tribals, N. K. Bose (1975, pp. 35–40) observed how even a low level of contact for trade in some items from the settled society had facilitated religious and cultural influences on the Juangs, as reflected in the tribal rituals and their worship of Laxmidevi and Rishipatni. A similar pattern has been discerned by Birendra Nath Prasad (2020), where he documents how trade routes that passed through the tribal regions of Purulia district of West Bengal led to the introduction of Jainism and Shaivism among the tribals, as reflected in the building of Jaina and Shaiva temples along with the placing of tribal hero stones in or around the temples in the region.

It was not only the traders and merchants who moved through the routes passing through the forests, but saints, ascetics, and mystics too ventured along the path. The tribes of Eastern India, from Juangs to Munda, Savaras to Oraons, still reflect the influences of Bhakti saints, particularly Vaishnavite Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who possibly passed through their regions (N. K. Bose, 1975; K. S. Singh, 1993, p. 11). Migration of people, particularly of Brahmans but also of peasants etc., from the Kshetra to the tribal regions also contributed to this interaction (Chakrabarti, 1992, p. 124).

However, as per some scholars, these interactions were not always organic. In many cases, there was a deliberate attempt to influence the tribal population at the hand of the state, which was influenced by the culture of the Kshetra. Chattopadhyay (2004) cites specific cases which show how endowments to Brahmanas were attached to particular local-tribal shrines, which were subsequently Brahmanized by identifying the deity with divinities across the Hindu pantheon. This was particularly apparent in the cases of various local goddesses, such as, “Goddess of the Forest” (Aranyavasini), “Goddess of the Pot” (Ghattavasini), “Goddess of the Tree” (Vatayaksini), or elsewhere, the “Goddess of the Post” (Stambhesvari) etc., being identified with Durga. These endowments were made by the rulers to legitimise their rule in the larger region. This in turn facilitated the penetration of considerable Brahmanical influences in the tribal Scholars have proposed multiple models to explain not only the modes of interaction but also the processes and patterns of cultural interaction between so-called Hindu traditions and tribal cultures.

Bose (1975) observed that technologically inferior tribal cultures, due to various necessities, like population pressure or constraints on expansion, were coerced to establish an economic relationship or get integrated itself into the broader socio-economic structure of the Hindu society, where it forged a distinct socio-economic niche of its own, just like other multitudes of castes, hence, converting from a tribal to a caste society, in this process, there is a two-way flow of religious/cultural elements, though tilted more toward absorption of Hindu culture among the tribal culture. Hence, Bose’s model focuses on economic processes still it is not deterministic, moreover, in his analysis, one could see some suggestions of the Sanskritization theory developed by sociologist MN Srinivas.

Srinivas (as quoted in Chakrabarti, 1992), defines Sanskritization as a method through which low and middle caste groups climb the social ladder by adopting Brahmanical rituals and customs. He states:

The caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially so in the middle regions of the hierarchy. A low caste was able, in a generation or two, to rise to a higher position in the hierarchy by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism, and by Sanskritizing its ritual and pantheon. (p.125)

However, scholars were quick to cite various cases that differed from the model proposed by Srinivas. Among the primary contentions of the critiquing scholars was that it was not always the Brahmanas who acted as a model for imitation, but other regionally dominant castes, such as merchants or peasants, or in some cases, the dominant Muslim communities in regions like North-Western India acted as a model for imitation (ibid., p.131). Moreover, the influences or imitations were never one-sided. In some cases, the settled agrarian population under the fold of Brahmanical culture was influenced by neighbouring tribal cultures.

In a study by SL Kalia in Jaunsar-Bawar in Uttar Pradesh and in the Bastar region of Madhya Pradesh, he found a phenomenon of tribalization of caste Hindus who temporarily settled in the tribal regions, where they were quick to adopt tribal customs, rituals, and culture (ibid, p.132). This phenomenon can be discerned in various regional and, in some cases, supra-regional cults, where the tribal elements of the culture within the fold of Brahmanical Hinduism are apparent and still intact. A prime example is that of the cult of Jagannath in Odisha.

A similar strand of analysis came from Robert Redfield, who tried to understand the dynamics of Indian civilization as a dialogue between the Great Tradition of the Indian civilization, that’s the Sanskritic traditions, and the Little Traditions, which were constituted of various regional and local traditions. The Great Tradition built on modification, absorption, and universalization of little traditions, and in the process, as per him, both the Great and Little traditions influenced each other (ibid, pp.128–130).

Kunal Chakrabarti (ibid., pp. 123–125) proposes, on the basis of his analysis of the Puranic literature, that the Puranic religious syncreticism was a necessity on the part of the Brahmanas at a time when the socio-cultural picture wasn’t favourable for them. Hence, the Puranas and Puranic religions were a product of an attempt by the Brahmanas to maintain their privileges, and in this process, many regional, local, and tribal cults got assimilated and incorporated under the umbrella of Hinduism.

However, this line of argument does not explain why the assimilation and incorporation of local cults by Brahmanas was allowed by the social class which supposedly had antipathy toward the Brahmanical class. Furthermore, we hardly have any evidence which can suggest an active, conscious, and deliberate attempt on the part of Brahmans to appropriate, assimilate, and incorporate the “other” religions into their “own.” These texts were rather later creations, composed to acknowledge and, in a way, legitimise an ongoing cultural process.

Furthermore, if the Puranas can be interpreted as an attempt to appropriate tribal and regional cults, the plethora of elements within non-Brahmanical cultures, which incorporate Brahmanical elements only superficially, can be interpreted as an attempt to universalize regional and local customs by appropriating Brahmanical elements.

For instance, the use of names of Hindu deities in various tribal and local mystical and magical spells, which can be termed as the so-called Kala Jadoo or black magic, is prevalent in tribal regions (KS Singh, 1993, pp. 10-18). Similarly, the various tribal stories that involve Brahmanical deities can be interpreted in the same light. For instance, the well-known storey of Chenchu Lakshmi of Andhra Pradesh, where a form of Vishnu is celebrated as the son-in-law of the Chenchu tribals.

Hence, there is no single theory that can explain the interactions and assimilation of tribal cultures with that of Hinduism. However, the phenomenon can be understood by viewing this interaction between the two not as an interaction between the so-called tribal “religions” and Hindu “religion,” but by visualising this interaction as a largely organic and gradual interaction of the constituents of the socio-economic, political, and cultural whole, interacting in parts and facilitating mutual transmission of other parts, “religious” elements being one such accompanying part. This interaction was facilitated by the absence of any dominating negative theology, which was capable of defining itself by negating or invalidating the “religious” facet of another culture. It’s this mode of interaction, and the non-exclusionary and non-essentializing nature of Indian traditions, that gave Hinduism its distinctive character.

V Raghavan (as cited in Chakrabarti, 1992) emphasises three distinct characteristics of the so-called Brahmanical great tradition, which Chakrabarti describes as,

First, this great tradition is not a destructive force; it constantly absorbs and conserves existing practices and customs. Second, it reduces a bewildering mass of cultural elements to some homogeneity and synthesis. And third, this incorporation and systematization by the great tradition result in refinement of the little tradition practices by conferring on them an esoteric significance. ( pp. 142-143)

Hence, even today, it’s not hard to find seemingly tribal elements in a supposedly Brahmanical tradition. Similarly, one can find the coexistence of both Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical traditions within the same space.

Moreover, what has to be noted is that the people who practise both Brahmanical and tribal customs together do not find any contradiction in them. It’s only when an outsider tries to make sense of the milieu through an imported epistemological framework that contradictions become apparent and, at times, disturbing.

This frustration to demarcate distinctly Hindus from tribals was reflected in the subsequent census during the colonial period, which led to the subsequent construction of arbitrary and vague categories, namely “animism” or “tribal religions”, which was used to impose an artificial Hindu–tribal divide (Shourie, 1994, pp. 187-89).

To sum up, it would be right to argue for the uniqueness of what is now known as Hinduism’s interaction with tribal cultures, which was marked by accommodation, assimilation, and coexistence of tribal cultures within the larger Hindu fold, as opposed to Abrahamic religions, whose interactions are more exclusionary and less accommodative, given the essentializing nature of their theology with well-defined boundaries. Furthermore, the uniqueness stems from the nature of Indian traditions (Hindu-tribal), which enabled the processes of assimilation, incorporation, and coexistence to function, rather than from the processes themselves.

References

• Bose, N.K. 1975. The Structure of Hindu Society (Translated from Bengali by Andre Beteille). Delhi: Orient Longman.
• Chakrabarti, Kunal. 1992. ‘Anthropological Models of Cultural Interaction and the Study of Religious Process’. Studies in History, Vol. 8, no.1: 123-149.
• Chattopadhyaya, B.D. 2004. ‘Reappearance of the Goddess or the Brahmanical Mode of Appropriation: Some Early Epigraphic Evidence Bearing on the Goddess Cult’. In B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Studying Early India: Archaeology, Text and Historical Issues, pp. 172-190. Delhi: Permanent Black.
• Eschman, A. 1994. ‘Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the Indian Folk Religions’. In G.C. Tripathi and H. Kulke (eds), Religion and Society in Eastern India. Delhi: Manohar.
• Flood, G. D., & Flood, G. D. F. (1996). An introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press.
• King, Richard. (2010). Colonialism, Hinduism and the discourse of religion. In Bloch, Esther, Marianne Keppens, and Rajaram Hegde (eds.). Rethinking religion in India: The colonial construction of Hinduism. Pp. 95-113. Routledge.
• Prasad, Birendra Nath. 2020. ‘Jaina and Brahmanical Temples and Political Processes in a Forested Periphery of Early Medieval Bengal: A Study of Purulia’. Religions of South Asia, London/ Sheffield, Vol.14, no.3, pp. 188-214.
• Singh, K.S. ‘Hinduism and Tribal Religion: An Anthropological Perspective’. Man in India, Vol. 73, no.1: 1-16.
• Sontheimer, G.D. 1994. ‘The Vana and the Kṣetra: The Tribal Background of Some Famous Cults’. In G.C. Tripathi and H. Kulke (eds), Religion and Society in Eastern India. Delhi: Manohar.
• Shourie, Arun. (1994). Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, dilemmas. ASA Publications