Understanding the Construction of Hinduism: An Indian Social Theorist's View

The question asks which Indian social theorist proposed that the concept of a single, unified, or homogenized Hinduism was not an inherent reality but was actually put together, or 'constructed', partly due to what they termed the 'cultural arrogance of post-enlightenment Europe'. This perspective suggests that European intellectual frameworks and colonial interactions played a significant role in shaping how Hinduism came to be understood, often simplifying its diverse traditions into a single entity.

Let's look at the options provided:

• Ashis Nandy: Ashis Nandy is a prominent Indian political psychologist, sociologist, and cultural critic. His work often explores the psychological, social, and political impacts of colonialism and modernity. He has written extensively on Indian identity, traditions, and the influence of Western thought. Nandy's arguments frequently touch upon how the West perceived and categorized the East, including its religions. He is known for critiquing the universalizing tendencies of Western thought and its impact on non-Western cultures and identities, including the construction of religious identities like Hinduism during the colonial period.
• Partha Chatterjee: Partha Chatterjee is a leading figure in postcolonial studies, known for his work on nationalism, civil society, and political thought in India. While his work critically examines colonial influence and nationalist responses, this specific argument about the homogenization of Hinduism driven by European cultural arrogance is more closely associated with Ashis Nandy's critical analysis of Western perceptions and colonial knowledge systems.
• T. K. Oommen: T. K. Oommen is a well-known sociologist whose work focuses on social movements, state and society relationships, and issues of identity, particularly in India. His research covers areas like nation, state, and ethnicity, as well as rural sociology and social transformation. While he deals with identity formation, the specific argument about homogenized Hinduism stemming from European cultural arrogance is not his primary focus compared to Nandy.
• Rajni Kothari: Rajni Kothari was a political scientist who founded the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). His work significantly contributed to understanding Indian politics, the party system, and the role of institutions and social movements. While he analyzed the dynamics of Indian society and polity, his central arguments do not revolve around the colonial construction of Hinduism through the lens of European cultural arrogance in the way Ashis Nandy's does.

Based on the central themes and specific arguments put forth by these theorists, the idea that a homogenized Hinduism was a construct influenced by the cultural arrogance of post-enlightenment Europe is most notably associated with the writings and critiques of Ashis Nandy. He has articulated how colonial gaze and Western categories imposed a singular identity on the diverse practices and beliefs under the umbrella term 'Hinduism'.

Therefore, the Indian social theorist who argued this point is Ashis Nandy.

Revision Table: Indian Social Theorists and Their Focus

Additional Information: Ashis Nandy's Critique of Western Influence

Ashis Nandy's work often challenges the dominance of Western paradigms in understanding non-Western societies. He suggests that the process of colonization involved not just political and economic control but also a profound psychological and cultural impact. The colonizers, equipped with post-Enlightenment ideas of reason, classification, and progress, attempted to understand and categorize Indian society and its complex religious practices. This process, according to Nandy and other scholars, often led to the imposition of Western categories and the simplification or distortion of diverse local traditions. The vast array of traditions, philosophies, and practices in the Indian subcontinent were sometimes grouped under the single, somewhat artificial, label of 'Hinduism' in a way that obscured internal differences and historical evolution. Nandy argues that this categorization was influenced by the colonizers' own worldview and their need to create manageable, understandable subjects of rule, reflecting a form of 'cultural arrogance' where the Western model was implicitly or explicitly considered superior or the standard.