________________
Vol. XXIII, 2000
REVIEW
145
As the evidence we may point out to the author's utter ignorance in places regarding the Hindu view of life, his prejudice, his poor and unacademic research acumen, his derisive style, all of which rendering the book doubtful, inaccurate, unauthentic and in bad taste, in stark contrast to the publisher's note in the back title claiming that the book is "written with assurance, learning, sympathy and insight”, all of them being conspicuous by their absence. The evidence is as given below :
(1) On p.1, the author says that the word 'Hindu' was not created by the Hindus themselves, that it probably was a designation coined by the ancient Persians for the people who lived beyond the Indus river, the eastern border of the outermost province of Persia, that the term 'Hinduism' is an invention of eighteenth century European scholars who were fond of -isms' and had no exposure to the reality of Indian religions, that by now however the designation 'Hindu' has been taken over by the Hindus themselves, and it makes sense to use the term to describe a fanily of religions that developed over the past several thousand years in South Asia which have much in common and share many historioc roots. Now, the question is why should the author with such and accurate knowledge continue with this term ‘Hinduism', rather than 'Hindu Religion', an follow in the footsteps of the obsolete scholars of the eighteenth century? By relegating the Hindu Religion to just oneism' he is but debasing the lofty concepts of the religion. It may be convenient for the author to use the terms like Hinduism, Jainism, Sukhism, Judaism and Busddhism, but he takes care not to brand the Chritianity as Christianism, nor the Islam as Islamism. He knows that in the latter case if he does that, he will be placed in Salman Rushdie's predicament.
(2) On p. 33, under the caption 'Ayodhya', he writes that "it gained notoriety through the demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu activitists in December 1992, which provoked the worst Hindu-Muslim rioting since independence all over India as well as in Pakistan and Bangladesh.” What was the necessity of mentioning this incident here? It in effect tantamounts to slighting the Hindus deliberately. Is he ignorant as to who Babar was, if not a fanatic roving Islamic looter? Does he not know that it was because the place was worshipped as a birth place of Lord Rama, he deliberately destroyed it and built a Masjid-like facade as a lasting moument of his act of insulting the faith of the defeated 'heathens'. By taking note of this controversial
