Editing Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (section)

====Universalism, communalism and Hindu nationalism====
According to Richard King, the elevation of Vedanta as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta as the "paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion"{{sfn|King|2001|p=128}} by colonial Indologists but also neo-Vedantins served well for the [[Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalists]], who further popularised this notion of Advaita Vedanta as the pinnacle of Indian religions.{{sfn|King|2001|pp=129–130}} It

{{blockquote|...provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression.{{sfn|King|2001|p=133}}}}

This "opportunity" has been criticised. According to Sucheta Mazumdar and Vasant Kaiwar,

{{blockquote|... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement – "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "''most universal and deepest significance''" – is fairly typical.{{sfn|Mazumdar|Kaiwar|2009|p=36}}}}

Rinehart also criticises the inclusivity of Radhakrishnan's approach, since it provides "a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}}{{refn|group=note|Rinehart: "Though neo-Hindu authors prefer the idiom of tolerance to that of inclusivism, it is clear that what is advocated is less a secular view of toleration than a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth. Thus Radhakrishnan's view of experience as the core of religious truth effectively leads to harmony only when and if other religions are willing to assume a position under the umbrella of Vedanta. We might even say that the theme of neo-Hindu tolerance provided the Hindu not simply with a means to claiming the right to stand alongside the other world religions, but with a strategy for promoting Hinduism as the ultimate form of religion itself."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}}}} According to Rinehart, the consequence of this line of reasoning is [[Communalism (South Asia)|communalism]],{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} the idea that "all people belonging to one religion have common economic, social and political interests and these interests are contrary to the interests of those belonging to another religion."<ref group=web>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pluralindia.com/book/Illustrated_prmier/Chapter_5.pdf|title=Ram Puniyani, ''COMMUNALISM : Illustrated Primer, Chapter 5''|access-date=1 December 2013|archive-date=3 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043727/http://www.pluralindia.com/book/Illustrated_prmier/Chapter_5.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Rinehart notes that Hindu religiosity plays an important role in the nationalist movement,{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} and that "the neo-Hindu discourse is the unintended consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda."{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=196-197}} Yet Rinehart also points out that it is

{{blockquote|...clear that there isn't a neat line of causation that leads from the philosophies of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan to the agenda of [...] militant Hindus.{{sfn|Rinehart|2004|p=198}}{{refn|group=note|Neither is Radhakrishnan's "use" of religion in the defence of Asian culture and society against colonialism unique for his person, or India in general. The complexities of Asian nationalism are to be seen and understood in the context of colonialism, modernisation and [[nation-building]]. See, for example, [[Anagarika Dharmapala]], for the role of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lankese struggle for independence,<ref>{{Cite book | last =McMahan | first =David L. | year =2008 | title =The Making of Buddhist Modernism | publisher =Oxford University Press | isbn =9780195183276}}</ref> and [[D.T. Suzuki]], who conjuncted [[Zen]] to [[Nihonjinron|Japanese nationalism]] and [[Bushido|militarism]], in defence against both western hegemony ''and'' the pressure on Japanese Zen during the [[Meiji Restoration]] to conform to [[Shinbutsu Bunri]].<ref>{{Cite journal | last =Sharf | first =Robert H. | title =The Zen of Japanese Nationalism | journal =History of Religions | volume =33 | issue =1 | pages =1–43 | date =August 1993 | url =http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Zen_of_Japanese_Nationalism.html | doi =10.1086/463354 | s2cid =161535877 | access-date =1 December 2013 | archive-date =29 December 2020 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20201229174255/http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Zen_of_Japanese_Nationalism.html | url-status =live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last =Sharf | first =Robert H. | year =1995 | title =Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited | url =http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/whose%20zen_sharf.pdf | access-date =1 December 2013 | archive-date =2 February 2019 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20190202090252/http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/whose%20zen_sharf.pdf | url-status =live }}</ref>}}}}