By Maya Warrier
Kim Knott (2000), in her survey of the development in Britain of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in the 30-year period since its first arrival in 1968, notes how this organisation (ISKCON, popularly known as the Hare Krishnas),1 made concerted efforts from 1985 onwards to gain public respectability after a period of negative publicity in the mass media and in anti-cult circles. ISKCON’s efforts, Knott argues, entailed a number of important changes—a repackaging of Krishna Consciousness in order to open it up to new audiences, a greater emphasis on engagement and dialogue with wider society after a period of relative insularity and a shift in the principal strategy of communication from preaching to outreach. A notable development in ISKCON’s outreach strategy in Britain has been its increasing willingness to engage with Hindus and Hinduism. This is despite the early reluctance of the society’s founder, Swami Prabhupada, to associate Krishna Consciousness with Hinduism (a reluctance shared by some members to this day)—an issue I will discuss later in the chapter. In Britain, ISKCON has made active efforts to reach out to people who identify themselves as Hindus and to develop strong institutional links with the organisations seeking to represent and organise British–Hindu interests. This has led to a process that Malory Nye (2001: 27–32) describes as the gradual ‘Hinduisation’ of ISKCON in Britain.2
At the same time, ISKCON has also worked towards shaping Hindu identities and practices, therefore influencing the ways in which Hinduism is tending to develop in British contexts. Excellent organisational skills, the presence of highly articulate and efficient personnel within the movement, multiple cultural competencies (for example, in dealing with successive generations of Hindus in Britain with different degrees of fluency in English) and a remarkable ability to get things done have all enabled ISKCON to lead by example and set the pace for other Hindu groups to follow. The result has been what Nye (2001: 132) calls the ‘Iskconisation’ of Hinduism in Britain. As Nye and others have noted, by the 1990s, ISKCON’s public image had shifted from that of a cultish and rather suspect ‘New Religious Movement’ in the fringes to an important Hindu organisation playing a significant role in public and private debates on the direction of Hinduism in Britain. An important element in ISKCON’s many outreach activities has been its active involvement since 1990 with Religious Education (RE) in British schools. This work is conducted by ISKCON Educational Services (IES), a formal educational programme set up in 1990, which today is a significant resource for school teachers and students in Britain who want to teach/learn about Hinduism. The resources and services provided by IES cover a wide and impressive range and include publications on Hinduism aimed at RE teachers, in-service training seminars for RE teachers, school talks delivered by ISKCON personnel, school visits to ISKCON’s temples and the sale of religious artefacts such puja items as well as images and posters of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.
My aim in this chapter is to examine ISKCON’s reasons for its entry into, and continued engagement with, the RE arena, its deliberations on its relationship with Hinduism in this connection, its approach to RE and the particular ways in which it presents Hinduism to its school audiences. My main sources here are the writings of the Founder and Director of ISKCON Educational Services, Rasamandala Das. In a series of articles that appeared in the 1990s in ISKCON Communications Journal, Das set out IES’s agenda and deliberated on the potential scope and limitations of its RE programme. This is IES’s ‘backstage’ as it were, where important issues concerning ISKCON’s relationship to Hinduism, and the legitimacy or otherwise of the RE programme, were scrutinised, debated and resolved within the organisation in a notably reflective and self-critical fashion. I also rely on an unpublished M.A. thesis that Das submitted to the Institute of Education at Warwick University in 2005, where he further reflected on the work of IES and the issues central to the development of resources on Hinduism for RE purposes. I have complemented the information available in these writings with information subsequently made available to me by Das in the course of a personal interview. The second major source I rely on here is The Heart of Hinduism RE pack authored by Das.3 This is one of the main RE resources that IES makes available to schools and school teachers. This crucial resource, comprising an illustrated book, Hinduism fact sheets for school teachers, CDs and posters of the main deities, provides important insights into the ways in which IES represents Hinduism and the means by which it has striven to remain true to Swami Prabhupada’s founding vision. Before I take up these themes in detail, however, I first provide, in what follows, a brief overview of RE in Britain’s schools, outlining its aims and scope, in order to set the activities of IES in their proper context.
The Education Reform Act of 1988 brought the study of religions other than Christianity into the curriculum of state-maintained schools in England and Wales. The 1988 Act required that the RE syllabi used in different schools should, while reflecting the fact that the religious traditions in Britain are in the main Christian, also take account of the teaching and practice of the other principal religions represented in the UK.4 RE was to be taught not according to National Curriculum Orders, but according to locally agreed syllabi. Local education authorities were required to constitute a standing advisory council on RE (SACRE) to advise the authorities on such matters as the particular methods of teaching, the choice of materials and the provision of training for teachers. These councils could include in their membership such co-opted members as individuals from Christian and other religious denominations who appropriately reflected the principal religious traditions in the area. According to the 1988 legislation, it was the duty of state-maintained schools to promote ‘the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils’. RE was understood to provide students with a means for ‘spiritual development’; pupils were, thus, expected not just to learn about, but also to learn from, the religions they encounter.5
The 1988 Act proved to be a landmark development for religious organisations like ISKCON who, for the first time, could legitimately enter the arena of school education and extend their outreach activities to include education authorities, teachers and school children. By the time ISKCON formally entered the RE arena in 1990 through the establishment of IES, it already had a long history (dating back to 1973) of organising and hosting school visits to the ISKCON centre at Bhaktivedanta Manor in Watford. IES continued with these activities;6 additionally, it also offered initial as well as in-service help with teacher training, assistance with curriculum development and advice to RE specialists, government officers and educational bodies like SACRE. It joined the Religious Education Council in 1994, assisted what is now the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority with model agreed syllabi and in 2004 was represented on the steering group for the National Framework.7 Besides supplying artefacts and books to schools, it began publishing material specifically for the classroom, and IES’s teaching pack, entitled The Heart of Hinduism, is one of its most comprehensive efforts to meet the teaching needs of school teachers who teach about Hinduism in the classroom. Though working with rather limited personnel,8 IES is among the more influential and active Hindu organisations to be contributing to RE in British schools today.9
ISKCON’s entry into the RE arena was very much part of its deliberate movement from a position of insularity to one of greater public recognition and social acceptance. It was also a means for furthering ISKCON’s avowed mission of ‘communicating the name of Krishna worldwide, ensuring that it reaches into the hearts and minds of those in every town and village’ (Knott, 2000). The schools programme, as Das notes (1994a: 2), did not aim for direct recruitment to ISKCON. Instead, IES’s aim was to ‘favourably influence public opinion on the moral and philosophical integrity of ISKCON’ (ibid.). In an interesting analysis of the IES’s schools programme in terms of modern communications theory, Das (1994a: 4) sets out the behavioural responses to their RE input that IES would ideally have liked from school pupils:
Give up everything and join? Definitely not, at least for the moment. When pupils reach the age of eighteen they’ll automatically have that option. And for the spiritual seeker, experiences gained as a pupil will not be in vain. More immediately though, here are some possibilities:
1. To speak favourably about the tradition and its members
2. To study us further (i.e., renewed or continual contact) …
3. To write to us …
4. To explore the relevance of Krishna consciousness in their own lives
5. To explore the relevance of Krishna consciousness in global, social and moral issues.
Das notes how school children, comprising about a sixth of the UK’s total population, necessarily included future prime ministers, archbishops, academics, journalists, press editors, police chiefs, multimillionaires and spiritual aspirants. He also notes how ISKCON’s involvement in RE would enable it to influence these youngsters ‘at an age when they are particularly receptive to new ideas and information, [and] when their prejudices and misconceptions are not so deeply rooted’ (ibid.). Entering the field of RE, according to Das (1994a: 4), was also a means by which ISKCON could fulfil its social responsibility. He describes ISKCON as ‘making great strides both internally and externally’ in the area of social responsibility. ‘We’re becoming aware’, he writes:
… of the practical and sociological perspectives of ISKCON, rather than just the philosophical, and of the need to practically demonstrate this philosophy, as well as speak it, in order to convince others of its relevance to the modern world. Our tradition has much to offer: its respect for all forms of life, attitude towards the environment and perspectives on sex, violence, drugs, crime and politics. The Vedic teachings embrace every aspect of human affairs. (Ibid.)
Effecting changes in society, he notes, requires positive interaction with its members. ISKCON, according to him, needs to ‘value its heritage and what it can offer to its various publics, not just in terms of nebulous transcendental aspirations but in concrete, practical services’ (Das, 1994a: 2). IES, he argues, can offer ‘first-class service to schools’ (ibid.) and thereby make a valuable contribution both to ISKCON and to society at large. This is particularly significant at a time when, as he notes, government authorities increasingly expect teachers to take responsibility for the spiritual and moral development of their pupils. Involvement with RE could, in his view, provide ISKCON with a route into the spiritual and moral development of school children, thus also enabling ISKCON to fulfil its social responsibilities in these areas (ibid.: 4).
Thus, ISKCON’s engagement with RE was intended to deliver wide-ranging results: its RE activities would generate general awareness about ISKCON, enhance ISKCON’s reputation, increase its recruitment potential, expand its spheres of influence and enable it to fulfil its social responsibility by providing a practical means of effecting social change. Whereas IES’s motivations for engaging in RE and the anticipated results, were relatively uncontroversial from ISKCON’s point of view (although perhaps not so from the point of view of education authorities), deliberations about its mode of engagement with RE were rather more problematic. The three articles by Rasamandala dasa published in ISKCON Communications Journal in the early 1990s make readily apparent that at the heart of IES’s RE venture lay two critical issues that needed early resolution. The first related to the problematic question of how ISKCON perceived its identity in relation to Hinduism and whether it could at all claim to represent Hinduism. The second had to do with the acceptability or otherwise of a confessional approach within a secular educational framework. I will now take these up in turn.
IES’s proposed engagement with RE raised important questions pertaining to ISKCON’s self-definition and identity. Most local education authorities tended to use a ‘World Religions’ model; with a few notable exceptions, therefore, the number of religions tended to be six (Dossett, 2008). The RE curricula allowed for very little specialised study of sub-traditions and/or of traditions that eluded classification as a ‘World Religion’; besides, school teachers tended to view a denominational approach with suspicion. This meant that confining its RE work to its own specific sectarian tradition was a difficult option for ISKCON. ISKCON, however, did not feel entirely comfortable defining itself as ‘Hindu’, and IES had initial reservations about undertaking to represent Hinduism to a school audience. Das (1994b: 1) describes this unease in the following words:
Right from the start, there were a couple of notable challenges. Firstly, we were assumed, and required, to represent one of the principal world religions, namely Hinduism. This raised pertinent, and sometimes controversial, theological questions about the identity of ISKCON and its members … Secondly, and subsequently, this also meant that ISKCON Educational Services staff were required to make presentations not just on ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, nor on broad Vaishnavism, but on the whole spectrum of Hinduism itself. I began to question whether this supported our Society’s aims or was even consistent with them.
ISKCON’s unease with identifying itself as Hindu derives mainly from the views about Hinduism expressed by the ISKCON founder, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Prabhupada reportedly rejected the term ‘Hindu’10 on the grounds that this is not a Sanskrit word used in Vedic literature; he seemed to favour terms like Vedic dharma, varna-ashrama dharma and sanatana dharma to refer to the broader tradition of which he saw ISKCON as a part (Das, 1994b). Prabhupada’s rejection of the designation ‘Hindu’ also appears to have been a rejection of narrow particular identities (Hindu, Christian, Indian, American, and so on) in favour of what he saw as the universalism of Krishna Consciousness (ibid.). Moreover, Prabhupada is reported to have disavowed what he described as any ‘connection with pantheism, polytheism and caste consciousness that pervades modern Hinduism’ (ibid.).11 Alongside all this, somewhat paradoxically, Prabhupada is also understood to have asserted that ISKCON is the authority when it comes to teaching what ‘real Hinduism’ is (ibid.). These assertions could be interpreted to mean that Prabhupada perceived Krishna Consciousness (or indeed ISKCON’s larger Vaishnava tradition) alone as the ‘real’ Hinduism and saw everything else associated with Hinduism as false and inauthentic. If IES adopted this interpretation, the result would presumably be irreconcilable conflict between IES and other Hindu ‘faith representatives’ in Britain, each potentially arguing that its version of Hinduism alone was the ‘real’ version worthy of being explained to schoolchildren. However, in Das’ writing, we see him carefully steering a more pragmatic route through these potential problems and controversies.
Das (1994b: 1) argues that if ISKCON was to participate in RE in schools, it would have to teach about Hinduism generally and not focus narrowly on its own tradition. ISKCON, he points out, is ‘whether we like it or not, strongly identified with the broader tradition …’. He observes that ‘the schools programme in the UK can operate only under the banner of Hinduism’ and that ‘in the UK … there is no way we can interact productively with schools if we deny our connection to what is commonly called Hinduism’ (Das, 1994a: 4). He also notes that ‘modern scholars in RE tend to favour input from faith members. This is to our advantage and will contribute towards our becoming authorities on “real Hinduism”’. Das does not explain here exactly what, in his view, constitutes ‘real’ Hinduism. He does, however, point to the many benefits that were likely to result if IES attempted, in its engagement with RE, to represent Hinduism as a whole.
Das notes that through its representation of Hinduism, IES could indirectly generate greater awareness about ISKCON’s beliefs and practices among school children and teachers and thereby enhance ISKCON’s reputation in the public sphere. ‘The reputation of ISKCON’, he notes, ‘at least within the educational world, depended significantly on public perception of the broader tradition, which we had ample opportunity to influence’ (Das, 1994b: 1). Through its production of the RE resource material on Hinduism and its negotiations with schools, government authorities and other faith groups involved with RE, IES could potentially work towards correcting what Das describes as ‘misrepresentations of Hinduism’ in the RE arena. Das (1994b) is particularly critical of school textbooks that describe Hinduism as monistic and/or polytheistic, tending either to ignore or downplay monotheistic traditions like ISKCON. He is critical also of the Eurocentrism implicit in these accounts, the portrayal of aspects of the larger tradition as ‘primitive’ and ‘superstitious’, the failure to respect insider accounts and the inadequate engagement with colonialism and its influence on Hinduism (ibid.). Through IES’s involvement with RE in Britain’s schools, he argues, it could address these problems, generate awareness about the significance of monotheistic traditions within Hinduism and restore pride of place to organisations like ISKCON within the larger Hindu fold (ibid.). Today, after nearly two decades since IES first entered the world of RE in Britain, issues of self-definition and identity remain problematic and controversial within ISKCON. However, IES in Britain has come to be recognised as a success story despite (or because of) its alignment with Hinduism, and according to Rasamandala Das,12 has come to command the respect and appreciation both of members of Britain’s RE sector, as well as ISKCON members worldwide.
Both in his writings in the early 1990s in ISKCON Communications Journal and in his later M.A. thesis, we find Das striving to reconcile ISKCON’s confessional and missionising approach with what he describes as the non-confessional approach of professionals working in the field of RE. We see the author making something of a personal journey in the course of his educational work, developing into an increasingly critical and reflexive insider who seeks to engage relative outsiders, particularly outsiders in the RE world, on their own terms. In the earliest of his articles, he describes how his initial efforts to promote school visits to Bhaktivedanta Manor were prompted by a ‘compulsion for spreading the word’ (Das, 1993). However, even at this early stage, he emphasises the need to make IES’s services acceptable to the RE world:
It’s essential to know how to present Krsna consciousness in terms of the educationalist ethos; that is, to know the needs, concerns and attitudes of educationalists—what is acceptable and what is taboo. For example, whilst a coercive approach will lose you good friends, there is much emphasis on experiential learning and listening to practitioners of a faith. It’s imperative to respect the integrity of both teachers and pupils so that, if they wish, they are free to explore their spirituality within the safe environment you create. (Ibid.)
Elsewhere he writes:
It may be expedient to note that the word ‘preach’ usually has negative connotations with our public, although it is considered a ‘buzz word’ within ISKCON. However, I don’t see this as a stumbling block in relating our aims to those of the public as fortunately there is no exclusive theology at the base of our tradition. Our preaching activities are not directed at conversion from one faith to another; rather we wish to encourage spiritual values that are common to all and embodied by diverse religious traditions. This goes a long way in validating ISKCON’s ‘missionary’ aims in the eyes of educationalists …
… Good preaching does not require coercion; respecting the integrity of the person and his or her ability to make meaningful decisions based on the information we provide, is part of our heritage. This is corroborated by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita (18.63): ‘Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.’ (Das, 1994a: 1)
We see here Das seeking to redefine activities like preaching and missionising, stripping these of any ‘coercive’ tendencies and fostering instead an ethos that respects the integrity and agency of the individuals or groups targeted. He also refocuses to some extent ISKCON’s theological outlook, emphasising that the theology at the base of this tradition is entirely inclusivistic and that ISKCON upholds ‘universal spiritual values’ supposedly common to different religious traditions. ISKCON’s aim, in this perspective, is not ‘conversion’ to its own faith, but encouragement of spiritual values that are ‘common to all’.
If we conceptualise confessional and non-confessional approaches as two ends of a continuum, we find here Rasamandala Das making a concerted effort to move ISKCON, and particularly IES, away from the purely confessional end (which he associates with preaching, proselytising, coercion, conversion and exclusivistic theologies) to a position somewhere in the middle which he defines in terms of an inclusivistic theology,13 a universal spirituality, a respect for difference and a regard for the personal autonomy of the targeted individual(s). This position in the middle, he assures his sampradaya fellows, remains based on commitment to ISKCON and its values. Commitment, he argues, is important in the teaching process. Real commitment, however, he argues, is ‘symptomised not by proselytising, but in respect for the integrity and faith allegiance of the individual’ (Das, 1994a: 2).
Das further refines his ideas on the confessional/non-confessional debate in RE in his M.A. dissertation. Here he sets out the problem clearly when he says:
There are also contentions between the religious and professional communities, reflecting the uneasy relationship (in the West at least) between faith and critical reason … Thus faith members, though valued in RE, are also suspected of harbouring ulterior motives or of being insufficiently reflective about their commitments. Such scepticism is intensified when faith members align themselves with political causes. (Das, 2005: 3)
In formulating his own response to these concerns, and attempting to legitimise the role of faith representatives in RE, Das makes the following perceptive points. First, he notes that the perceived dichotomy between religionists on the one hand, understood to be uncritical and motivated purely by self-interest, and educationists on the other, who are understood to be objective and value-free, is false. His own approach to RE is what he describes as synthetic—rather than see faith and reason as opposed and mutually exclusive, he seeks a synthesis between the two; likewise he aims for synthesis between confessional and non-confessional approaches; and between religious nurture and religious education. Any contribution faith members make to RE in Britain, he argues, would have to be in the areas where religious nurture and religious education overlap. Insofar as this overlap is not explicitly acknowledged, he says, there is little place for faith members in RE. If their aims are confessional, they disqualify themselves. If their aims are purely educational, they become redundant (Das, 2005: 20).
Second, he argues that even while occupying this area of overlap between religious education and religious nurture, faith members in RE must adopt interactive and experiential teaching methods that value the personal autonomy of students; this also means that the input of faith members must be broad and uncensored and that students must then be allowed the autonomy to study and reflect on the different views of truth represented within and across religious traditions (Das, 2005: 21). Additionally, he argues that when faith members adopt the role of educators, their professional development must be informed by a suitable pedagogical theory. Any pedagogy suitable to RE, he argues:
… will embrace religious and governmental concerns, and point to the need for a conversational approach involving all RE constituencies, including children. Such an approach tackles concerns about ‘self interest’ … through joint and transparent formulation of educational aims; a process that promotes reflexivity and makes contributors accountable to a professional framework. (Das, 2005: 19)
Third, he argues that to build meaningful relations within the RE world, faith members will need to be aware of the ethos of education, its language, its issues and, most importantly, the needs and concerns of other constituencies. Critiquing the tendency of faith groups to be biased, and to homogenise and over-simplify their tradition, he argues for the importance of faith members to be reflective about their faith, to value paradoxes and contradictions within their tradition and to engage with its inner plurality rather than presenting a picture of their tradition as perfectly homogenised and rationalised. He also stresses the importance of engaging with, rather than filtering out, controversial issues and conflict within traditions. He notes how the notion of religion as a ‘belief system’ favours a dominant discourse that reifies cultures, and indicates his own preference for the language of cultural interaction on the ground, where culture is perceived not as static and fixed but as a dynamic process relying on personal agency (Das, 2005: 9–11).
A close reading of The Heart of Hinduism pack produced by the IES reveals an underlying tension between the confessional and non-confessional, as well as between conceptions of what counts as ‘real’ Hinduism (in keeping with Prabhupada’s vision) and what does not. The pack, as noted earlier, comprises, besides a textbook, also easily digestible fact sheets for use by teachers, posters of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, an audio CD entitled ‘Sounds of the Hindu World’14 and a CD-Rom providing further information on particular sections of the book as well as teaching resources such as stories, passages from Sanskrit texts, an audio glossary with pronunciation guide, hyperlinks to websites and picture files for use in classroom presentations. The pack comes in two versions—one for primary school teachers and the other for secondary school teachers—and the main difference between the two versions is the different levels of complexity of the material contained in the accompanying textbook. My focus in this section is mainly on the book included in the pack for secondary school RE, and it is with reference to this attractive and information-rich resource that I make my observations on IES’s representation of Hinduism.15
The one-page introduction to the book highlights the problems in applying such concepts as ‘religion’ and ‘belief’ to Hindus and Hinduism. It warns against the dangers of perceiving Hinduism through a Western framework and invites readers to view the tradition through its own eyes. ‘Despite the complexities of the tradition’, the introduction states, ‘it can be categorised and explained, as we have tried to do here’ (Das, 2002: 4). It also draws attention to the problematic issue of who represents Hinduism and how. The author notes both the advantages and drawbacks of relying on Hindus to speak on behalf of their own religion. Showing a notable degree of self-awareness, the author writes:
… our own experience as members of the Vaishnava tradition, and our access to resources (such as photographs) may somewhat slant our portrayal of the tradition as a whole. We are also aware that some Hindus might disagree with some of our statements and sentiments. This is to be expected and welcomed, though we sincerely hope that we do not offend anyone. (Ibid.)
The book takes the reader via ‘Key Concepts’ and ‘Core Values’ of Hinduism in Part 1, to ‘Central Practices’ (worship, festivals, pilgrimage, rites of passage, dharma) in Part 2, through ‘Expressions of Faith, and Lifestyle’ in Part 3, to ‘Continuity and Change’ (historical perspectives, doctrine and scripture and movements and leaders) in Part 4. The book makes liberal use of colourful photographs and illustrations, provides quotes from ‘scriptural passages’ to embellish discussions on specific topics, offers pointers to stories from Hindu mythology to illustrate particular points and highlights issues which lend themselves to personal reflection on the part of the students. A section on ‘Common Misunderstandings’ under each topic aims to dispel popular falsehoods about Hindus and Hinduism and to suggest directions for further enquiry.
The intent to systematise Hinduism is evident in the layout of the book. Part 1 of the book identifies the following as Hinduism’s key concepts: the distinction between the eternal self (atman) and the temporary body; reincarnation; samsara, the law of karma; the three gunas; maya; moksha and the different paths to it; sources of authority—the shastras and gurus; views on time and creation; notions of dharma; and ideas about god. It also identifies what are perceived as the key values in Hinduism—included here are such virtues as honesty, compassion, hospitality and interestingly also ahimsa, celibacy and austerity. Much of the ‘values’ section focuses on how values are transmitted across generations, and the importance of storytelling in this connection is particularly highlighted.
At this level we have a fairly unified picture of Hinduism where all Hindus, it would seem, share relatively similar conceptual categories and values. The book, as it advances through its respective sections, adds levels of greater complexity to the relatively simple depictions in Part 1. Thus, the section on gods in Part 1, for instance, simply makes distinctions between brahman (the all-pervasive), bhagavan (god without or beyond) and antaryami (the god within), and explains two main approaches to god—the monistic and the monotheistic (a discussion I shall analyse in more detail later). It is only in Part 2 under ‘Central Practices’ that the reader is introduced to the different foci of worship in Hinduism and the multiplicity of Hindu gods and goddesses. Further levels of complexity are introduced when festivals relating to these gods and goddesses are introduced and, thereafter, the foci of worship are expanded still further with a discussion on holy centres, places of pilgrimage and important features of the Hindu natural landscape such as hills, rivers and mountains considered sacred. It is only much further in the book, in Part 4, that the book discusses the different denominations within Hinduism such as those of the Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas, and divisions within these. In other words, what starts out looking like a fairly homogeneous picture of Hindus begins to look increasingly heterogeneous and diverse as one works one’s way from the opening chapters to the closing sections.
Though the images used to illustrate the text, the scriptural passages quoted and the stories cited are all overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) Vaishnava, the discussion of Hinduism does not take place from a solely Vaishnava perspective. We see the author deliberately engaging, for instance, with Shankara’s advaita or non-dualistic perspective even though it is theologically incompatible with the dvaita or dualism of ISKCON’s Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We also find here a deliberate engagement with gods and goddesses like Shiva and Kali; with ritual and festivals such as Shivaratri and Durga Puja; and with holy places like Kedarnath and Somnath, that fall well outside the Vaishnava pale. There is clearly an attempt here to depict Hinduism in its diversity, and willingness to present rival or competing points of view rather than simply present those which ISKCON holds dear. There is also no discernible attempt in the text to preach or proselytise.
Alongside this effort to provide a fairly wide-ranging picture of multiple viewpoints within Hinduism, the book makes a concerted effort to present what the author describes as the personalistic theology underlying ISKCON, which, he argues elsewhere, has tended to be under-represented in school textbooks on Hinduism. In the section on ‘God: The Main Understandings’, for instance, the author attempts to counter the ‘common misunderstanding’ that ‘Sacred images are not worshipped as such but are merely meditational aids to help focus on the all-pervading world-soul (Brahman)’. He counters this idea by pointing out that not all Hindus believe exclusively in the impersonal aspect of god. ‘Many consider that he not only has form but appears as the murti to accept worship’ (Das, 2002: 23). Similarly, under the section on Vedanta, the author notes that a common misunderstanding about Hinduism is that ‘Vedanta (and all Hinduism) is entirely monistic, believing only in the all-pervading world-soul, Brahman, rather than a personal God’. In response to this, he asserts the following:
This advaita philosophy is certainly popular, and offers a simple explanation of the many deities. Nonetheless, many theologians have considered God to be a person. He is not merely an anthropomorphic representation, nor are the various deities and murtis simply incarnations or representations of an impersonal Supreme. Thus Hinduism includes both monism and monotheism. It is misleading to call the Abrahamic religions ‘the monotheistic traditions’, implying that monotheism is absent from Eastern traditions. Vedanta includes many monotheistic schools. They may accept the existence of many gods and goddesses, but strongly emphasise the pre-eminence of the Supreme Deity. (Das, 2002: 119)
These are among the many attempts made, throughout the book, to accord monotheistic Vaishnavism, as well as personalistic devotion, both exemplified by ISKCON, their rightful place in representations of Hinduism. The descriptions in the textbook are an interesting combination of generalisations in some instances, and the careful avoidance of generalisations in others. In the section on ‘Key concepts’ we find the rather generalising assertion that Hindus ‘place relatively little emphasis on expressions of allegiance to a particular creed’ (Das, 2002: 25). Surprisingly, this claim follows only two pages after the more measured assertion: ‘There remain theological controversies as to the nature and identity of God, and there are documented instances of sectarian intolerance’ (Das, 2002: 23). Similarly with respect to bhakti, we find the rather problematic and generalised claim that bhakti traditions ‘broke through caste barriers and attracted millions of followers’ (Das, 2002: 134). We find here no mention of the ways in which the vast majority of bhakti traditions also have tended to accommodate caste inequalities, reinforcing purity-pollution principles in their ritual and organisation. Another instance of a rather problematic claim is that made with respect to Krishna worship in the section on Vaishnavism; here the author notes: ‘Worship of Krishna dates back at least 5,000 years, though Western scholars suggest it emerged more recently’ (Das, 2002: 134). There is no effort to substantiate this assertion, and the reader is left somewhat mystified as to whether to read this as historical fact or as an aspect of ISKCON’s belief system.
Throughout much of the text, one can discern a bias towards, and privileging of, Sanskrit textual traditions which are understood to form the basis of ‘real’ Hinduism. Real Hinduism is, therefore, to be found in the Vedas and the myriad Sanskritic traditions that emerged out of the Vedic corpus. The author defines Hindus as those who follow the Vedic scriptures and emphasises Varnashrama Dharma as the bedrock of Hinduism. Among the different sub-traditions emerging from the Vedic complex, he includes two schools of Vedanta, the impersonalist or monist one and the personalist or monotheistic school. He then outlines three main foci of worship in modern Hinduism, Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, describing the first two as tending towards impersonalism and the third as personalist, and situating ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism within the personalist tradition. This locates ISKCON as a subcategory within the larger category of Hinduism (now defined as the Vedic tradition). Moreover, Krishna Consciousness as portrayed here is not the only ‘real’ Hinduism, these other traditions are real and legitimate as well. This general outline of Hinduism and its sub-traditions is in many ways reminiscent of earlier attempts by Orientalist scholars as well as Hindu reformers to situate ‘truth’ and ‘authenticity’ in the Vedas, which in turn are understood to confer legitimacy on all subsequent forms of brahmanism. Aspects of popular Hinduism that do not readily fit this text-based brahmanical paradigm are inevitably sidelined or neglected.
As noted earlier in this chapter, Rasamandala Das justified ISKCON’s involvement in RE generally, and in the teaching of Hinduism in particular, by arguing that ISKCON’s reputation depended in large part on public perceptions of Hinduism as a whole. Thus, an important part of IES’s agenda is to present Hinduism in a positive light to Britain’s education authorities, school teachers and school children. Throughout The Heart of Hinduism textbook, we see the author attempting to do precisely this. Aspects of Hinduism which are difficult to justify to a Western audience, such as caste and gender inequalities, present, in this respect, a particular problem. Additionally, aspects of Hinduism that Swami Prabhupada sought to distance himself from—those of polytheism and pantheism in addition to social inequality—too present something of a problem. It is particularly instructive to see how The Heart of Hinduism textbook attempts to deal with these issues.
There are only two places in the book where the words ‘pantheism’ and ‘polytheism’ appear. Neither term appears in the index. The focus is for most part entirely on what are identified as the two main Hindu doctrines, those of monism and monotheism. Both are described as accommodating a multiplicity of gods; in the monistic case, the relationship between the one and the many is described in terms of a single ray of light getting refracted into multiple colours when it passes through a prism. In the monotheistic case, the relationship between one god and many gods is described in terms of the relationship between a prime minister and his/her cabinet of ministers (Das, 2002: 22). We find here no separate treatment of polytheism or pantheism as legitimate aspects of Hindu world views, and the passing references there are to polytheism are rather dismissive in tone. One such reference appears in the section in Part 1 entitled ‘God—the Main Understandings’. Here the author notes:
In the broader sense, Hinduism may well encompass every notion of God there is, including more primitive forms of polytheism. Within the more sophisticated schools of thought, particularly Vedanta, there are two main doctrines, each with many variations and each emphasising that there is one god. These are monism and monotheism. (Das, 2002: 22)
Elsewhere in the book, in a section entitled ‘Focuses of Worship’ the author notes that when trying to understand the numerous deities and objects of worship in Hinduism, ‘it is too simplistic to explain these complexities by resorting to claims of pantheism and polytheism’ (Das, 2002: 47). Implicit here is an important value judgement which can be understood to stem, ironically, from the very Christian-centred bias that this book sets out to challenge. Polytheism in this reckoning is ‘primitive’, whereas belief in one god shows a degree of intellectual sophistication. Besides, claims of pantheism and polytheism are ‘simplistic’ and do not capture the complexities of real Hinduism which are best understood through the lenses of monotheism and monism. The multiplicity of gods and goddesses and the veneration of a sacred landscape can be understood primarily in relation to these two doctrines and must be seen as a facet of the relation between the one and the many as explained in Vedantic (and, therefore, textual or shastrik) traditions. Neither polytheism nor pantheism is presented as an aspect of ‘real’ Hinduism in its own right and, therefore, neither merits more than passing mention in a book on real Hinduism. We see here one instance of Hinduism being homogenised and domesticated to suit the larger agenda of making the tradition respectable from a Western and, indeed, Christian-centred point of view.
Caste or jati presents its own set of problems for a textbook that seeks to represent Hinduism as a ‘respectable’ tradition. As a system of inherited and unequal social status, it appears totally antithetical to modern Western ideals of equality and social mobility. In discussions of caste inequalities, we find Rasamandala Das portraying the jati system as a corruption of the varna-dharma ideal. The varna system is portrayed as a system allowing each individual to find his or her dharma in society—as Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra. These are depicted as ranks determined not by birth but in accordance with the individual’s inherent capabilities, qualities and aptitudes; varna is, thus, portrayed as a system based on merit and allowing for social mobility. ‘What differentiates caste from Varnashrama-dharma’, the book notes, ‘is its hereditary nature—possibly an imposition by Brahmins attempting to consolidate their prestigious position’. The book cites stories from Indian texts to demonstrate that Varnashrama Dharma in its pristine form was a fluid and flexible system, and that people had the freedom to change their varna if they so chose. The book is critical of the caste or jati system (as opposed to the varna ideal) for its rigidity, its basis in heredity and its exploitation of lower castes. However, it explains away jati by portraying it as a corruption of the earlier varna system. Thus, whereas varna-dharma is an aspect of an idealised ‘real’ Hinduism located in Sanskrit texts, caste or jati lacks any scriptural sanction and is therefore a distortion of the real thing. The following passage, under the sub-heading ‘Common Misunderstandings’ exemplifies this approach:
Some Hindus now consider that Western researchers have unfairly dismissed many Hindu practices without sufficient consideration of any possible rationale behind them. Misuse of a principle does not negate it. One example is Varnashrama-dharma. Caste abuse has even prompted some writers to claim that Varnashrama-dharma is inherently racist. In fact, caste is quite different from Varnashrama-dharma, for the latter simultaneously promotes spiritual equality whilst acknowledging material diversity. Other phenomena require similarly sensitive treatment in order to understand them better. Naturally, even the purer spiritual principles, as distinct from later aberrations, may challenge or conflict with many post-modern values. (Das, 2002: 105)
IES’s concern to present a positive image of Hinduism to school children is of course understandable (and presumably also endorsed by the ‘multiculturalism and social cohesion’ agenda of education authorities). It is noteworthy that there is no attempt here to justify the caste system or to portray it as a thing of the past. What remains problematic, however, is the suggestion that caste, and its basis in unequal power relations, represents a non-shastrik or post-shastrik corruption of the varna system of ancient Sanskrit texts which, according to this description, was based entirely on merit. In fact, stories abound in texts like Valmiki’s Ramayana and Vyasa’s Mahabharata which depict the varna system as strictly hereditary and therefore as allowing little freedom and flexibility in its operation. The bias, discernible throughout The Heart of Hinduism, in favour of an idealised shastrik (textual and Sanskritic) tradition is problematic not only because it undermines non-shastrik traditions but also because it presents a rather sanitised version of the shastrik traditions in the first place.
The Heart of Hinduism praises bhakti movements for their opposition to caste hierarchies. There is even mention of bhakti traditions initiating ‘non-caste Brahmins’ from communities normally considered untouchable; accompanying the text here is a photograph of a Westerner in white clothes, presumably an ISKCON priest, pouring offerings into a ritual fire (Das, 2002: 104). The caption beneath the photograph reads: ‘Above: A Western-born non-caste Brahmin performing a fire sacrifice. Many of the bhakti movements, such as the one to which this priest belongs, have challenged rigid notions of caste and untouchability.’ This photograph and the accompanying caption achieve three aims at once. By introducing the category of the ‘non-caste Brahmin’ they redefine brahmanhood as an achieved rather than an ascribed status. They privilege bhakti traditions like ISKCON by portraying these as indigenous impulses opposed to caste inequalities. And finally they challenge some traditional notions of who does or does not count as a Hindu by decoupling ethnicity and ancestry from definitions of Hindu identity; hence, a white person of Western origin has as much claim to be Hindu as an individual who traces his/her ancestry to the Indian subcontinent. ‘Real’ Hinduism is thus presented as a vehicle of ‘universal spiritual values’ rather than as a group-tied tradition rooted in conceptions of ancestry and ethnicity.16
The tendency to portray problematic realities of contemporary Hinduism as a ‘corruption’ of an earlier idealised Sanskritic tradition (in an attempt to preserve the ‘respectability’ of ‘real’ Hinduism) is also evident in the book’s treatment of such subjects as gender inequality in Hindu traditions. It discusses ‘the role of women’ in a section on ‘other social issues’ such as poverty, child-marriage, sati, polygamy and the dowry system. It notes that ‘Hindu texts stress the importance of stable family ties and valuing and protecting women. Nonetheless, there has been—and there still is—wide abuse’ (Das, 2002: 105). A section entitled ‘Famous Women within Hinduism’ opens with the lines: ‘Hindu scripture, particularly of the earlier period, places great value on the contribution of women. The much-reported abuses of women in India demonstrate a falling away from traditional practice.’ There are references to texts like the Manu Smriti elsewhere in the book, but there is no mention of this text in the context of its highly problematic depiction of women as, for instance, lustful, dishonest, feeble-minded and generally lacking in virtue. Despite the valiant efforts of the author to present Hinduism in all its multiplicity and diversity, there does seem to be a tendency here to homogenise and domesticate Hindu worlds to suit not only ISKCON’s own agenda (to make Hinduism respectable in the eyes if its school audiences) but presumably also the RE agenda of teachers and educationists in Britain (to promote not just understanding of, but also empathy and respect for, the multiplicity of religious traditions now thriving in the UK).
IES provides a revealing example of a faith organisation attempting to represent Hinduism in ways that satisfy many different requirements at once—those of educationists and government authorities working in RE sector, ISKCON’s own faith members, Hindus and Hindu organisations in Britain, as well as the school children who are the ultimate targets of this enterprise. The constraints faced by IES are many and varied: there is pressure from educationists for a non-confessional approach to RE, there is pressure from educationists and presumably also from the larger sectors of organised Hinduism in Britain for an inclusive approach to Hinduism and there is pressure from within ISKCON to remain true to the founder’s vision of ‘real’ Hinduism rooted in the Vedas and to further ISKCON’s mission of communicating the name of Krishna worldwide. There is additionally the imperative to present Hinduism in ways that make it appear entirely ‘respectable’ from the point of view of a Western, largely Christian or secular, audience. IES’s attempts at representing Hinduism for RE purposes reveal the complexities involved in such representational efforts and the skilful strategising necessary to make these representations acceptable to the different parties concerned.
Needless to say, the processes of Hinduisation identified by Nye as an important aspect of ISKCON’s outreach activities in Britain are very much in evidence in its RE work. We see here IES aligning ISKCON’s identity with that of the broader tradition.17 In the process, however, IES in turn exerts an important transformative effect on Hinduism. In IES’s seminal work, The Heart of Hinduism, we find Hinduism systematised in ways that accord ultimate importance to what is identified as the Vedic tradition. The Hinduism that results is a somewhat brahmanised and Sanskritised version, made readily accessible to the schools public. This version inevitably makes selective use of textual material, thus presenting a more coherent picture than is in fact the case. Particularly revealing is the assortment of Hindu realities sidelined, marginalised or completely neglected in this portrayal of Hinduism. These marginalised elements reveal much, not merely about IES’s approach to Hinduism, but also about the value systems of the public that IES addresses through its work.
For Rasamandala Das, his work on Hinduism is an ongoing project. He is critical of some of the content of The Heart of Hinduism and he continues to strive towards ever more complex representations of the ‘broader tradition’ that he hopes will do it greater justice. He is also keenly aware of the political underpinnings and implications of all such representational work.18 Furthermore, he is highly self-reflexive and continues to examine his own motivations for engaging in this kind of work. Perhaps more than anything else it is this reflexive and self-critical approach that makes IES an ideal candidate for engaging in the RE work initiated by the 1988 Act. The high degree of professionalism of this work, the range and volume of the RE activities covered by IES and IES’s excellent networking across educational, governmental and ‘faith’ sectors in Britain, all go towards making ISKCON one of the biggest ‘Hindu’ players in the RE field in Britain.
Brooks, Charles R. 1992. The Hare Krishnas in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Bryant, Edwin F. and Maria L. Ekstrand (eds). 2004. The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. New York and Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.
Das, Rasamandala. 1993. ‘Developing the Schools Programme’, ISKCON Communications Journal, 1 (1): 17–20.
———. 1994a. ‘Pupils, Teachers and Preachers: An Analysis of the Schools Programme in Terms of Modern Communications Theory’, ISKCON Communications Journal, 1 (2). Available at www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12rmd.html (accessed 9 January 2011).
———. 1994b. ‘“The Western Educationalists” Perspective on the Vedic Tradition’, ISKCON Communications Journal, 2 (4): 51–68. Available at www.iskcon.com/icj/2_2/rasamandala.html (accessed 9 January 2011).
———. 2002. The Heart of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Guide for Teachers and Professionals. Aldenham, Herts: ISKCON Educational Services.
Das, Rasamandala. 2005. Voice or Voices? Evaluating the Contributions of Hindu Organisations to Religious Education in Britain. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Warwick.
Dossett, Wendy. 2008. ‘“Learning About and Learning From”: Reflections on the Significance of Theology/Religious Studies Method Debates for Modern Religious Education’, in Maya Warrier and Simon Oliver (eds), Theology and Religious Studies: An Exploration of Disciplinary Boundaries. London and New York: T&T Clark.
Dwyer, Graham and Richard J. Cole (eds). 2007. The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Jackson, Robert. 1997. Religious Education: An Interpretive Approach. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
———. 2007 ‘Religion in the Educational System of England and Wales: Law, Policy and Representation’, in John Hinnells (ed.), Religious Reconstruction in the South Asian Diasporas. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knott, Kim. 1986. My Sweet Lord: The Hare Krishna Movement. Wellingborough: Aquarian.
———. 2000. ‘In Every Town and Village: Adaptive Strategies in the Communication of Krishna Consciousness in the UK, the First Thirty Years’, Social Compass, 47 (2): 153–67.
Nesbitt, Eleanor. 2004. Intercultural Education: Ethnographic and Religious Approaches. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
Nye, Malory. 2001. Multiculturalism and Minority Religions in Britain: Krishna Consciousness, Religious Freedom and the Politics of Location. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.
Rochford Jr, E. Burke. 2007. Hare Krishna Transformed. London and New York: New York University Press.
1 For scholarly discussions on this transnational organisation, see for instance Knott (1986), Brooks (1992), Nye (2001), Bryant and Ekstrand (eds) (2004), Dwyer and Cole (eds) (2007), Rochford Jr (2007).
2 See Rochford Jr (2007: 181–200) for a discussion of similar processes in ISKCON’s North American context.
3 See Das (2002).
4 Even before 1988, many school syllabi included, in addition to studies of the Christian tradition (as per the Acts of 1870 and 1944), some work on religions other than Christianity, reflecting both the growing significance of religious studies as a secular subject in higher education institutions and the changing profile of British society as a result of immigration. The move towards the study of non-Christian traditions was, thus, a gradual process, sealed by law eventually in 1988. For an overview of the history of RE in England and Wales, see Jackson (2007).
5 Although RE is compulsory, there is provision for parents to withdraw their children from RE and some do, particularly those who do not want RE teachers to challenge the world view they wish to nurture in their children. RE and its aims have been controversial, and critics often question the place of religion (supposedly a private matter) in what is otherwise a public, secular education system, arguing that religions should be taken out of the school and left to the mosque, church, temple and home (see Dossett, 2008).
6 Prior to the establishment of IES, the Manor hosted about 20 school visits annually. By the mid-1990s, the Manor was conducting up to 250 programmes annually, roughly half of them at the Manor temple and the remaining in schools. Similar programmes were started in other ISKCON centres. According to the IES’s official records, in 2003–04 alone, ISKCON centres completed 624 presentations reaching more than 27,000 students (Das, 2005: 27).
7 Further to the 1988 Act, a Non-Statutory National Framework for RE was published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in 2004 and was intended to guide the further revision of agreed syllabi.
8 According to Das (personal communication, 1 July 2009), the IES has only four full-time, or nearly full-time, staff members, in addition to the director. However, it has further auxiliary staff serving at Bhakitvedanta Manor.
9 Other major players in this area include the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha (BAPS), which runs a highly successful schools programme at its temple in Neasden, and the Vivekananda Centre whose Educational Director coordinates classes on Hinduism at GCSE and Advanced levels, and provides Internet and textbook resources for students and teachers. There have also been educational initiatives on the part of organisations like the Brahma Kumaris and the Satya Sai Mission but these groups have tended to distance themselves from ‘Hinduism’.
10 This is not a unique stance for ‘Hindu’ groups and leaders; others have expressed similar reservations.
11 See Nye (2001: 30–31) for an insightful discussion on Prabhupada’s views on Hinduism and ISKCON’s relation to it. Nye notes how for Prabhupada, Hinduism was a khichari, hotchpotch, of religious beliefs and practices which misrepresent and distort the Vedic teachings. Moreover, he made a distinction between ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ arguing that the term ‘Hindu’ carried cultural rather than religious connotations.
12 Personal interview, 5 June 2009.
13 This idea that a move away from an exclusivistic theology towards an inclusivistic one also represents a move away from confessionalism towards the stated non-confessional aims of the RE agenda is a highly problematic one and deserves critical scrutiny.
14 This contains readings from scriptural passages, mantras, shlokas and the recitation of the multiple names of Vishnu, recordings of bhajans and kirtans and recordings of instrumental music.
15 Selected sections of The Heart of Hinduism pack are also available on the Internet at http://hinduism.iskcon.com.
16 It is particularly noteworthy in this connection that Das’s M.A. dissertation carries a self-reflexive section subtitled ‘My own background’ where he notes what he describes as his ‘aversion’ to nationalism. He argues vehemently against what he sees as the premise underlying Hindu nationalism—the notion of identity as fixed and unchanging. Noting that identities are multifaceted and constantly negotiated, he argues that the portrayal of Hindu identity in terms of a bounded and homogeneous culture, a fixed ethnicity related to ancestry and a fixed national geography is untenable. He particularly draws attention to Nesbitt’s (2004: 121) observation that notwithstanding ‘the etymological and psychological linkage of “Hindu” and India, the fact that some sampradayas include western devotees suggests that “Hindu” transcends the category of Indian ethnicity’. By decoupling Hindu identity with Indian ethnicity or ancestry, he seeks to secure a place for ISKCON’s non-Indian followers firmly within the larger ‘Hindu’ or, in his terms, ‘Vedic’, pale.
17 The fact that UK’s first Hindu faith-based Voluntary Aided state school, the Krishna Avanti Primary School which opened in London in September 2009, has ISKCON for its ‘official faith advisor’, further reflects the central place occupied by ISKCON in the contemporary British–Hindu landscape. See www.krishna-avanti.org.uk (accessed 9 February 2009).
18 Personal interview, 5 June 2009.