This article argues that thinking about disputed conceptions of religious conversion helps us understand the emergence of both Jewish and Indian nationalism in the nineteenth century. In today’s world, Hindu nationalism and Zionism are most often understood to be in conflict with various forms of Islamism, yet the ideological formations of both developed in the context of Christian colonialism and, from the perspectives of Jewish and Indian reformers and nationalists, the remaking of Hinduism and Judaism in the image of Christianity. Even as they internalized some aspects of Protestant criticisms of “Judaism” and “Hinduism,” nineteenth century Jewish and Hindu reformers opposed definitions of “Judaism” and “Hinduism” based upon what they regarded as a one-sided emphasis on individual belief at the expense of ancestry and national identity. In making arguments about what constituted “Judaism” and “Hinduism” respectively, Jewish and Hindu reformers also rejected what they claimed was the false universalism of Christianity, as epitomized by Christian missionizing. For Jewish and Hindu reformers of the nineteenth century, “Jewish” and “Hindu” ties to ancestry marked not a parochial intolerance of others, as many Christians had long maintained, but a true universalism that, unlike Christian missionizing, allowed, promoted and embraced human difference. In these ways, contested characterizations of “Judaism” and “Hinduism” in the nineteenth century set in motion a series of arguments about conversion that became central to Jewish and Indian nationalism, some of which remain relevant for understanding conversion controversies in Israel and India today.

中文翻译：

---

祖先与信仰之间：19世纪的“犹太教”与“印度教”

本文认为，思考有争议的宗教皈依概念有助于我们理解 19 世纪犹太民族主义和印度民族主义的出现。在当今世界，印度教民族主义和犹太复国主义最常被理解为与各种形式的伊斯兰主义相冲突，但两者的意识形态形成都是在基督教殖民主义的背景下发展起来的，从犹太和印度改革者和民族主义者的角度来看基督教形象中的印度教和犹太教。即使他们内化了新教对“犹太教”和“印度教”的批评的某些方面，19 世纪的犹太人和印度教改革者也反对“犹太教”和“印度教”的定义，因为他们认为这是片面强调个人信仰的观点。牺牲血统和民族认同。在分别讨论什么是“犹太教”和“印度教”时，犹太教和印度教改革者也拒绝了他们声称的基督教错误的普遍主义，基督教传教就是其中的缩影。对于 19 世纪的犹太人和印度教改革者来说，“犹太人”和“印度教”与血统的联系并不像许多基督徒长期以来所坚持的那样，标志着对他人的狭隘不容忍，而是一种真正的普遍主义，与基督教传教不同，它允许、促进和接受人的差异。通过这些方式，十九世纪对“犹太教”和“印度教”的有争议的描述引发了一系列关于皈依的争论，这些争论成为犹太和印度民族主义的核心，其中一些对于理解今天以色列和印度的皈依争议仍然相关.