This is a very sensitive yet important topic for Hindu soceity, as to the interrelationship of Jain, Bauddha, Sikh and other religions with traditional Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.
We can not deny the fact that in context of India, many Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha would go lengths to say that they are not Hindus and so on. Also we can not deny the fact that if you visit the websites or internet forums of Sikhs, Jains, Indian Bauddha, you may find bitter Hindu bashing by some members. You would be surprised to note that these fourm members (few) would be not so much bitter against Christo-Islamists as much as againsts Hindus.
HOWEVER, I think, it is important to analyze why they are reacting this way, rather than reciprocating the same thing to them.
First of all, we must avoid generalizing that they are anti-Hinduism or something like that. I have had plenty of Sikh and Jain friends and I find them all very respectful to Hinduism.
Majority Jains are as strong Hindutva-supporters as one can be. In North India (UP, MP, Rajasthan etc), Jain businesses are traditional financial supporters to Hindutva activities.
Likewise majority Sikhs on the ground level in India are for unity with Hindus and not otherwise. I very clearly remember the days of Ram Janmabhumi Andolan (1990-93). I used to be a student living in UP. Sikhs were solidly with Hindus during entire episode. I remember the speech of a local leader Sardar Kashmir Singhji, where he started by saying, "Ham Hinduon ki Yaddashta badi kamjor hoti hai" (We hindus have a short memory)...and so on. Master Tara Singh the famous Sikh leader was the founding member of VHP. Even today, doesn't Akali Dal-BJP alliance, politically represents that unity for last couple of decades?
So what is the source of friction between Hindus and these religions, and when did it start?
'When' is easier to understand. In history, you have no evidence of any persecution of Sikhs/Jains/Bauddha in India at the hands of Hindus. Likewise, no enimity towards Hindus at the hands of Sikhs/Jains. Most of the hinstoric Jains have been Kshatriyas - warriors and kings (like king Bindusar). Many jains have been traders and businessmen. But I am not aware of any anti-Hindu feeling amongst Jains in the history. Likewise, the history of Sikhs has been full of persecution by Muslims, but totally devoid of any source of animosity between Hindus and Sikhs. In history, Sikhs have fought bravely shoulder-to-shoulder with Marathas and other Hindu warriers not only against Mughals, but also against Afghans. There were many Sikh soldiers in the Great Maratha army that took on Abdali. Just read Guru Govind Singhji's words in Dasham Granth, and you would realize how highly he thought of Hindus. He had even tried to free up Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya from Mughals. Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to worship Ma Bhawani, perform Havans and was commited to Cow and Brahmin protection. (like Guru Govind Singh Ji)
So when did the friction amongst Hindus/Sikhs/Jains, and even within Hindus south/north/shaiva/vaishnav and so on start?
In a different context, VS Naipaul throws some light on this in his novel Magic Seeds. He writes that the division amongst Hindus was effectivy promoted from 1870s onwards by British imperialist designs. Having won the larger frontiers using the army full of Hindus themselves, and having quelled the 1857, British had now identified the effective tool of divide-and-rule. And they had by now built up the superstructure of operationalizing this divide and rule - 1) Aryan-Invasion 2) Martial races and Survile races 3) Casteism, Caste Scheduling, Caste based sensus 4) Macaulian Education 5) European-written Indian history 6) Developing/ encouraging sub-national identities - Bengali nationalism, Dravid nationalism, Marathi nationalism, Muslim nationalism.
So that is how it started. And results can be seen by early 1900s. Up until early 1900s, it was not uncommon for Gurdwaras to display the pictures of Hindu Deities too. Ram Rai, Krishna Singh, Buddh Singh are/were common names of Sikhs. In a Hindu family of Panjab, typically one son used to be Sikh, all other brothers used to remain Hindus.
But with early 1900 some Sikh voices were heard for the first time asserting an 'independant' identity different from other Hindus. Bhai Kanh Singh's was probably that first voice. From then on, it gained grounds. It also got support from Sikhs living abroad.
And as we know, spreading hate is easier than love. Animosity is a better glue than affection. First British, then Nehruvian Secularists, then communists gave all support to this artificial hatred. Recently Bipin Chandra , chela of Romila Thapar, has attempted his best to rewrite Sikh history with this new light. He has tried to prove that Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was not persecuted by Aurangzeb, but by the efforts of a Hindu courtier of his - named ram Rai. Reason, personal enimity with Guru because he had refused a matrimonial offer for his son!
Sikhs were almost the first Indian immigrants to US, Canada, Europe. Up until 1960s and 70s - and it will be difficult for us to imagine that today - it was really not a matter of pride for a Hindu to call himself Hindu. It was a matter of difficulty and almost embarrasment - thanks to the secularist-communist-missionary propoganda machine. (Do you remember the famous slogan of VHP throughout the 80s in India -"Garv Se Kaho Ham Hindu Hain - Say with Pride, We Are Hindu".) Under thick anti-Hindu propoganda widespread in west those days, Sikhs living abraod must have found it easier to dissociate themselves from Hinduism. They must have found it easier to portray Sikhism in Abrahamic lines rather than defending Hindu roots. Do you notice how western Sikhs present Sikhism in total Abrahamic norms these days! Guru Nanak is not a Great Sant Guru but a prophet!! Sri Guru Granth is a 'revealed' book much like bible/Koran! Unlike poly-theist Hindus, Sikhism is mono-theist! and so on. And rest is the momentum of inertia plus active politics from 1900 onwards. (This is my personal interpretation - and I may be wrong)
Likewise Indian Bauddhs. Since Indain Buddhism has become a vehicle of Dalit politics, Hindu-Bauddha harmony has been at risk.
So, what should Hindus do?
Difficult question. But it is easier to answere what we should NOT do. We must not react to Sikhs/Jains in the same way as some of them attack Hinduism. We must understand the situation, and act very carefully. We got to bring back the samarasata between all these faiths. Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha are not like muslims and Christos. They have always been and are our own brothers - even if many of them dont realize that today.
One way is to look at how our great Acharyas have behaved. Two examples - Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and Swami Vivekananda. Swami Dayananda traveled extensively in Panjab. In fact Panjab was one of the strong holds of Arya Samaj since inception. He mercilessly attacked Christianism and Islamism with all his might, and with what Oj! But did he even so much as raise a finger at Sikhs, Jains, Bauddhas? Never. Whenever he referred to these faiths, he did so with respect. If he did not agree to something, he ignored. He treated them sometimes with more respect than he did Hindu orthodoxy! Likewise Swami Vivekananda. He always talked about these faiths with respect, and as if these were his own.
What do we do then? Definitely not ignore or forget, certainly not attack back. Something, which will really start the inter-faith dialog amongst all these faiths... else we shall be playing into the designs of macaulian secularist-leftist-missionaries.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>By the way, in Atlanta various Hindu temples and organizations have come together under the banner of VHP, to celebrate November 5, 2006 as HINDU UNITY DAY (Link). The day happens to be Kartik Purnima - the Birth Day of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji. The event is supported by Sikh American Society of Georgia, and Jain Samaj of Greater Atlanta, apart from various other organizations.</span> ( LINK )
We can not deny the fact that in context of India, many Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha would go lengths to say that they are not Hindus and so on. Also we can not deny the fact that if you visit the websites or internet forums of Sikhs, Jains, Indian Bauddha, you may find bitter Hindu bashing by some members. You would be surprised to note that these fourm members (few) would be not so much bitter against Christo-Islamists as much as againsts Hindus.
HOWEVER, I think, it is important to analyze why they are reacting this way, rather than reciprocating the same thing to them.
First of all, we must avoid generalizing that they are anti-Hinduism or something like that. I have had plenty of Sikh and Jain friends and I find them all very respectful to Hinduism.
Majority Jains are as strong Hindutva-supporters as one can be. In North India (UP, MP, Rajasthan etc), Jain businesses are traditional financial supporters to Hindutva activities.
Likewise majority Sikhs on the ground level in India are for unity with Hindus and not otherwise. I very clearly remember the days of Ram Janmabhumi Andolan (1990-93). I used to be a student living in UP. Sikhs were solidly with Hindus during entire episode. I remember the speech of a local leader Sardar Kashmir Singhji, where he started by saying, "Ham Hinduon ki Yaddashta badi kamjor hoti hai" (We hindus have a short memory)...and so on. Master Tara Singh the famous Sikh leader was the founding member of VHP. Even today, doesn't Akali Dal-BJP alliance, politically represents that unity for last couple of decades?
So what is the source of friction between Hindus and these religions, and when did it start?
'When' is easier to understand. In history, you have no evidence of any persecution of Sikhs/Jains/Bauddha in India at the hands of Hindus. Likewise, no enimity towards Hindus at the hands of Sikhs/Jains. Most of the hinstoric Jains have been Kshatriyas - warriors and kings (like king Bindusar). Many jains have been traders and businessmen. But I am not aware of any anti-Hindu feeling amongst Jains in the history. Likewise, the history of Sikhs has been full of persecution by Muslims, but totally devoid of any source of animosity between Hindus and Sikhs. In history, Sikhs have fought bravely shoulder-to-shoulder with Marathas and other Hindu warriers not only against Mughals, but also against Afghans. There were many Sikh soldiers in the Great Maratha army that took on Abdali. Just read Guru Govind Singhji's words in Dasham Granth, and you would realize how highly he thought of Hindus. He had even tried to free up Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya from Mughals. Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to worship Ma Bhawani, perform Havans and was commited to Cow and Brahmin protection. (like Guru Govind Singh Ji)
So when did the friction amongst Hindus/Sikhs/Jains, and even within Hindus south/north/shaiva/vaishnav and so on start?
In a different context, VS Naipaul throws some light on this in his novel Magic Seeds. He writes that the division amongst Hindus was effectivy promoted from 1870s onwards by British imperialist designs. Having won the larger frontiers using the army full of Hindus themselves, and having quelled the 1857, British had now identified the effective tool of divide-and-rule. And they had by now built up the superstructure of operationalizing this divide and rule - 1) Aryan-Invasion 2) Martial races and Survile races 3) Casteism, Caste Scheduling, Caste based sensus 4) Macaulian Education 5) European-written Indian history 6) Developing/ encouraging sub-national identities - Bengali nationalism, Dravid nationalism, Marathi nationalism, Muslim nationalism.
So that is how it started. And results can be seen by early 1900s. Up until early 1900s, it was not uncommon for Gurdwaras to display the pictures of Hindu Deities too. Ram Rai, Krishna Singh, Buddh Singh are/were common names of Sikhs. In a Hindu family of Panjab, typically one son used to be Sikh, all other brothers used to remain Hindus.
But with early 1900 some Sikh voices were heard for the first time asserting an 'independant' identity different from other Hindus. Bhai Kanh Singh's was probably that first voice. From then on, it gained grounds. It also got support from Sikhs living abroad.
And as we know, spreading hate is easier than love. Animosity is a better glue than affection. First British, then Nehruvian Secularists, then communists gave all support to this artificial hatred. Recently Bipin Chandra , chela of Romila Thapar, has attempted his best to rewrite Sikh history with this new light. He has tried to prove that Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was not persecuted by Aurangzeb, but by the efforts of a Hindu courtier of his - named ram Rai. Reason, personal enimity with Guru because he had refused a matrimonial offer for his son!
Sikhs were almost the first Indian immigrants to US, Canada, Europe. Up until 1960s and 70s - and it will be difficult for us to imagine that today - it was really not a matter of pride for a Hindu to call himself Hindu. It was a matter of difficulty and almost embarrasment - thanks to the secularist-communist-missionary propoganda machine. (Do you remember the famous slogan of VHP throughout the 80s in India -"Garv Se Kaho Ham Hindu Hain - Say with Pride, We Are Hindu".) Under thick anti-Hindu propoganda widespread in west those days, Sikhs living abraod must have found it easier to dissociate themselves from Hinduism. They must have found it easier to portray Sikhism in Abrahamic lines rather than defending Hindu roots. Do you notice how western Sikhs present Sikhism in total Abrahamic norms these days! Guru Nanak is not a Great Sant Guru but a prophet!! Sri Guru Granth is a 'revealed' book much like bible/Koran! Unlike poly-theist Hindus, Sikhism is mono-theist! and so on. And rest is the momentum of inertia plus active politics from 1900 onwards. (This is my personal interpretation - and I may be wrong)
Likewise Indian Bauddhs. Since Indain Buddhism has become a vehicle of Dalit politics, Hindu-Bauddha harmony has been at risk.
So, what should Hindus do?
Difficult question. But it is easier to answere what we should NOT do. We must not react to Sikhs/Jains in the same way as some of them attack Hinduism. We must understand the situation, and act very carefully. We got to bring back the samarasata between all these faiths. Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha are not like muslims and Christos. They have always been and are our own brothers - even if many of them dont realize that today.
One way is to look at how our great Acharyas have behaved. Two examples - Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and Swami Vivekananda. Swami Dayananda traveled extensively in Panjab. In fact Panjab was one of the strong holds of Arya Samaj since inception. He mercilessly attacked Christianism and Islamism with all his might, and with what Oj! But did he even so much as raise a finger at Sikhs, Jains, Bauddhas? Never. Whenever he referred to these faiths, he did so with respect. If he did not agree to something, he ignored. He treated them sometimes with more respect than he did Hindu orthodoxy! Likewise Swami Vivekananda. He always talked about these faiths with respect, and as if these were his own.
What do we do then? Definitely not ignore or forget, certainly not attack back. Something, which will really start the inter-faith dialog amongst all these faiths... else we shall be playing into the designs of macaulian secularist-leftist-missionaries.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>By the way, in Atlanta various Hindu temples and organizations have come together under the banner of VHP, to celebrate November 5, 2006 as HINDU UNITY DAY (Link). The day happens to be Kartik Purnima - the Birth Day of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji. The event is supported by Sikh American Society of Georgia, and Jain Samaj of Greater Atlanta, apart from various other organizations.</span> ( LINK )