As one who is world religion literate and fascinated by the role of religion in human lives, I found this excellent. May your life-affirming take on what Hinduism is and how it should be lived take hold and grow deep roots that smother the ugly version. May this be true of the authentic representation of all wholesome religions around the world as we realize humanity is ONE and should comport itself that way!
A very important insight: “In a world where resistance to authority is growing, Hinduism imposes no authorities; in a world of networked individuals, Hinduism respects the truths of others; in a world of open-source information-sharing, Hinduism accepts all paths as equally valid; in a world of rapid transformations and accelerating change, Hinduism is adaptable and flexible ... “
I relate to this deeply. I was born into Hindu culture but never felt bound to a religious identity. What I inherited was not a belief system, but a vast inner landscape — something more like a library of ways to understand consciousness, life, suffering, and freedom.
Hinduism was never meant to be a single story that everyone must repeat. It evolved as a civilization of inquiry, where sages, skeptics, householders, lovers, ascetics, and philosophers all explored reality from different angles. That is why it looks confusing or “weird” to traditions that are more centralized and doctrinal — and also why it was so psychologically and spiritually rich.
The sadness today is not that outsiders misunderstand Hinduism. That has always been the case. The deeper sadness is that it is now being turned into a rigid identity, when its original genius was its refusal to be rigid.
What drew me to the inner path was never gods or rituals, but the permission to question, to experience, and to walk inward in my own way. I hope that spirit of inner freedom is not lost.
"In a world where resistance to authority is growing, Hinduism imposes no authorities; in a world of networked individuals, Hinduism respects the truths of others; in a world of open-source information-sharing, Hinduism accepts all paths as equally valid; in a world of rapid transformations and accelerating change, Hinduism is adaptable and flexible, even introducing the world’s oldest and farthest-reaching affirmative action program in the Constitution to overturn the institutional hierarchies of the orthodox caste system—which is why it has survived for nearly 4,000 years. And why a committed liberal can so easily embrace it."
If that's really the case then
1 Why Hinduism is the only religion which is attacked/targeted mostly by Liberal gangs?
2 why all the burden of practising secularism only goes to hindus's shoulder?
Hinduism is able to tolerate even atheists then why are you being so dogmatic about vaidic hinduism now? Allow it take whatever form it(Hinduism )wants to take to tackle 21st century challenges .
After all hinduism has never been a static religion it has evolved overtime then why are you stopping its natural evolution now?
What makes you feel that it has reached at it's optimum evolution level that you are trying to obstruct it by claiming that you are the original hindu . Let's the hindus decide which version they chose for their future.
Hindutva (people should refuse to go by that "Vedic Hinduism" PR name) damages India, and it damages Hinduism. Many reasonable Hindus see Hindutva it as a moment of insanity, with all the anti-scientific nonsense it pushes. It's not a natural evolution, it's an illness.
Evil is and always was a childish idea. Calling someone evil was an excuse not to understand how someone got messed up, and was powerless to help us decide if/when we might be able to fix them or stop others from becoming like them.
No, we don't live in the world of Clockwork Orange. We have laws that set some boundaries. We can make them more stringent if we see sufficient abuses, and we've already done so bit by bit over the decades.
The state is not the enemy, at least not in most western societies; it's society's biggest tool for self-betterment. Likewise, we're not talking about replacing morality with medicine, simply fixing severe defects in our morality like the childish idea of evil. Medicine can help people with their behaviour. It's not the only route; it's important people also learn and value self-restraint.
You have given great points by saying that Hinduism is a religion which is never static but it evolves and it should evolve its natural way just like a river , we should not force a dam on it .
Mr Tharoor, I agree with most of your points but "Mahatma" Gandhi who encouraged fathers to have their daughters killed for being raped, told Jews to commit mass suicide during the Holocaust, and slept next to underaged girls to "test his celibacy" was definitely not more liberal than Narendra Modi. I do have some qualms with our country's current leadership but Hinduism is certainly evolving in a better way than what it was under Gandhi and Nehru's leadership.
I am in total agreement with Mr. Tharoor’s definition of Hinduism and his chronicling of what it has become today.
I have grown up in a household that practiced the original undiluted form of Hinduism with each one of us having full liberty to choose the way of life we wanted, of course within the moral framework of honesty, integrity and humanity. I have seen inter-religious marriages in my family accepted without much bitterness and have also seen the practice of atheism by some of the members.
As a child I remember accompanying my grandmother to regularly offer the taziya to the annual Muharram procession in my city.
Born a decade after the country’s independence, I learnt of the modified version of the Verna system, the Caste system, that was encouraged in the country during the Mughal and colonial era and the oppression and atrocities that had happened in its wake. I am also aware of the open heartedness with which a newly independent India had planned to offset the injustices of the past by provisioning for a policy of reservations in education and jobs to its oppressed classes to enable them to participate in the country’s growth.
Such a background and atmosphere had helped me grow up as a liberal individual accepting alternate ways of seeking salvation.
The point is where has this liberal way of life taken Hinduism? A substantial reduction in its population? A string of atrocities heaped on its followers with no retributions? A destruction of its system that had temples as the basic source of education, social engagement and intellectual growth?
The Constitution which I feel was compiled rather than written had left many sections fuzzily defining and restricting the role of the majority( the Hindus) in propagating or defending its rights. An incorporation of the word ‘secular’ had further liberalised the scope of other religions in matters of freedom of propagation and protection while the other restrictive clauses of the constitution made the Hindus susceptible to conversion as a result of the missionary zeal of other religions through inducement, fear or terror.
Over the last few decades one has noticed globally, the enhanced missionary zeal of some sections of Christianity and Islam, the two major religions of the world, leading to a lot of strife and also in some cases near extinction of smaller group of followers of different sects like the Kurds , the Baha’i, the Ahmedias or the Yazidis.
Hinduism following its original tenets of a peaceful co-existence has been facing the brunt of such assaults by the two big religions of the world.
From the awakening of Hindus for self-preservation and self-respect brought forth by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda to the assertive form of Hindutva professed for self-defence and retention of identity professed by Veer Savarkar, Hindus have been trying to find a clear path to survive their Sanatana dharma in a melting pot of religious extremism and supremacy.
Through history Hindus have come to know of battles having taken place to protect Dharma in case of an onslaught from adharmic or alien forces, but this facet of Hinduism has always been suppressed by the colonial masters of India through an education system that undermined its past and subsequently by its secular rulers who glorified its Mughal heritage and its British legacy while at the same time obliterating the contributions of brave Hindus who had fought these colonisers or had professed the liberal values inherent in its belief. I am talking about India as this is the only country that is home for the Hindus.
One does not have to remind the world about how remorselessly they have unseen the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir, or the decimation of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or the relentless conversions to Christianity or Islam indirectly supported by the western lobbies and aided by a fuzzy constitution that has several articles severely restricting the majority population( the Hindus) from protecting themselves or their Temples.
I eagerly look forward to Mr. Tharoor’s suggestions for survival to the Hindu of today and am hopeful that he comes out with a solution that can help.
Yes , I also want him to find a liberalistic and secularistic solution to how our religion, our faith can save itself and survive in the wake of many indiscriminations being done against it .
And I loved your reply . And don't worry " Hinduism has always survived and will survive now as well , It will keep flourishing through ages since it's the religion which has no beginning and no end ."
I really enjoyed your comment because I also agree with the thoughts on what Hinduism is and I also understand and question the survival of morality (which is what I would say instead of ‘the Hindu’).
If one is exposed to the eternal truths, through knowledge, experience, example then it is not possible to convert such a person to non truth. So if it is important to ensure the survival of these truths we must exemplify what a good life you can have when you live by them or how you can manage the dark times when you keep them close. Ostracising others /other religions by its very nature is not what the truth is about and in that way, it will never ensure the survival of 'the Hindu'.
Also, if a said ‘Hindu’ resonates more with Christianity /Islam at some point in their life but continue in their essence to be a good person, then what does it matter what book, practices, name they pledge allegiance to? Isn’t the essence of the teachings /dharma more important than the labels?
Wonder why call Hinduism a religion rather than a way of life.
Some points that strike me:-
Religion does not evolve or change. Sanathan Dharm or Sikhism has not changed. Hinduism which I think is an aggregation of cultural fallout of some religions has changed. That is a mark of culture rather than a religion.
Hindutva is a socio-political manifestation of the Hindu Culture and hence it can be abused as a political tool. How does one abuse a religion as a political tool considering that it does not talk about politics at all. The cultural aspect of symbolic representation of a religion can always be used as a political tool and has always been used.
While the article is insightful and I always find Shashi Tharoor impressive I cannot shut my eye to the strong political leanings which I notice in his writings - a projection for a certain people’s perspective rather than the the whole. While Muslims have been lynched, so have others been and that includes Hindus. To give it a lopsided view is itself a political view of Hindutva. But then he is a politician and has political compulsions - which is fine.
All that apart, Shashi Tharoor always impresses with insights and convincing articulation.
When Hindu shastras ban Hindus from associating with Mlecchas is it liberal?
When Hindu Puranas condemn blasphemy is it liberal?
When Hindu scriptures criticize Atheism, is it liberal?
When Hindu rites are primarily male oriented, and our shastras imply patriarchal social norms is it liberal?
Your democratic/freedom loving concepts are no older than the french revolution and have no association with ancient Hindu society. Stupid fuck.
Hindu nationalism is Hinduism in its truest expression. Its about protecting Dharma. The Gita is the truest expression of Hindu principles which is why its so esteemed.
Of course we’re not like abrahamic religions because we’re polytheists. Our religion is philosophical and animistic.
Theirs is monotheistic and cultlike, being prophetical, not philosophical. And they are apocalyptic people.
None of this has anything to do with your stupid modernist left/right dichotomy. Our religion values duty : dharma. Not freedom. Our religion still values faith and loyalty to our ideals. You are not a Hindu if you do not agree with the concept of ParaBrahman.
Imagine being a literal wife murderer trying to lecture us on our religion. You are scum.
Patriarchy in Hinduism came in the later Vedic Period and the rules and laws were later edited otherwise there was no Varna system or Patriarchy in Hinduism.
And see , this is the beauty of Our Sanatana Dharma where we can criticise our own religious texts that whether they are ethical and morally implicated or not and can reshape them . That's why , With the evolving world , Patriarchy is not visible anymore . It will take time to completely eradicate from the roots but Hinduism is evolving itself towards a more sophisticated equality based world .
Yes , Hinduism criticises Atheism but with some logical facts and definitions .
Traditional Hindu scholars criticized Charvakas(Atheists or Nastikas) , not because they "offended God," but because their philosophy was seen as socially and spiritually destructive. Without a belief in Karma or an eternal soul (Atman), people would have no reason to act ethically (Dharma), leading to social chaos.
Hindu Puranas do condemn blasphemy and I will explain why .
In Hinduism , God is considered beyond insult. If you yell at the ocean, the ocean is not diminished. Therefore, "blasphemy" is often viewed as a sign of ignorance (Avidya) rather than a threat to the religion itself.
Moreover , if you have heard the story of Jabali and Charvaka where they were exactly insulting the Vedas or the Gods and the Hindu traditions but they were never subjected to punishments or executions. Instead , they were countered through peaceful arguments and debates .
Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu. Varna is by Guna Karma Vibhaga, with these sayings, what shastras are banning Mlecchas? "When Hindu shastras ban Hindus from associating with Mlecchas is it liberal?" . How do they reflect Dharma?
What are you trying to point out ? Hinduism never banned Mlechhas. Instead , they criticised Mlechhas for their unethical and illogical mindsets . We can't count this as illiberal .The word "Mlecchas" has many interpretations but the main definition is that Mlechhas were those Kshatriyas or people who were unrighteous and it is definitely justifiable to criticise or ban such people in any liberal community.
Thanks. We differ here. Guna is an inborn trait to anything, even to the so called inert particles. We simply call it as properties in Science. Karma is what one does. Bhagavad Gita is very clear about the role of guna karma vibhaga. That is easy to understand. Vedas do not talk about mlecchas, Do they talk about Mlecchas? and Vedic language Sanskrit has many think common with Indo European language with common words. So who are mlecchas? What is the meaning of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam?
Mlechhas are either foreigners or in a broader interpretation someone who were unrighteous. But you can't say Hinduism banned Mlechhas/foreigners. They were seen as invaders and cause of wars and death .And Hinduism never propheses on violence like those .Violence like those of the foreigners for their greed was unjustified. So, they deserved to be criticised.
Otherwise if foreigners visited our lands without an intent to conquer, we welcomed them like a guest .
In another context, Mlechhas were those kings and people who were unrighteous in their conduct . So , here also it is justified to ban them or criticise them .
Hence , Hinduism still stands as Liberal and All-inclusive cause whatever it does , it has a moral and ethical code of conduct hidden in those specific Karmas or actions .
Vedas only ‘talk’ about its ritual injunctions and Brahman.
Do Mlecchas do Vedic Samskaras? Do they follow Brahman? No.
BG is part of the Mahabharata, which has many verses condemning Mlecchas and stating their irreligiosity.
Hindu Puranas are quite clear on who Mlecchas are and aren’t - they are people beyond the pale of Bharat, who do not follow the holy rites. They’re avarna. Only India had varnashrama.
Vedas developed in India and only among Indians. Doesn’t matter if literally hundreds of years before that it has linguistic roots with IE languages. Other IE people have no Veda. Ancient Indians literally had no sense of commonality with any of these groups of people. Why do you think our scriptures disparage Yavanas or Shakas.
I agreed on most of your points but when you accuse someone of not being a Hindu since he doesn't belive in the concept of ParaBrahaman , you lost my respect . When you called someone "scum" in a peaceful debate , you lost the essence of Hinduism.
I don't belive in the concept of ParaBrahaman but rather I belive in the concept of Duality equals to Singularity equals to Plurality . We all are part of the Divine one and he is part of us .
I agree with you that Hindutva is intellectually vulgar and morally dangerous. But I differ on one point. I do not see Hindutva as a corruption of Hinduism’s liberal essence; I see it as the political maturation of contradictions Hinduism never resolved—especially hierarchy without accountability. Hindu metaphysical pluralism coexisted for centuries with social cruelty. Hindutva merely removes the philosophical restraint while retaining the structure. In that sense, it is not the betrayal of Hinduism, but its reckoning.
"I believe even Shashi Tharoor lacks a complete understanding of Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism permits non-belief; specifically, the Charvaka school of philosophy is atheistic. One can find references to this perspective within the Mahabharata."
Sir , we should instead preach Humanity and Morality to the world and the Indians and all the religions instead of targeting one specific religion and that is Hinduism .
This article should point out to every religion and every individual whether a Hinduism or not that he/she should practice the same "liberalistic" attitude as we are practicing and trying to make others practice .
It is not many truth actually. Only one Truth but with many names. Sarva Deva Namaskaram Keshavam prati gacchati. And Unlike abrahm religions and the school of Dvaita philosophy, God is not external to our world, but is a creater, sustainer, destroyer from within. Just like you cannot drive a car without engine, without petrol, without driver, there are no external divine to this world and everything is within this world. By law of conservation of mass, energy, there is no change in this world other than the change of forms. And Hinduism philosophy can find common grounds with modern science which other religions cannot do.
As one who is world religion literate and fascinated by the role of religion in human lives, I found this excellent. May your life-affirming take on what Hinduism is and how it should be lived take hold and grow deep roots that smother the ugly version. May this be true of the authentic representation of all wholesome religions around the world as we realize humanity is ONE and should comport itself that way!
I agree , Humanity is the best and the only religion , above all religions .
A very important insight: “In a world where resistance to authority is growing, Hinduism imposes no authorities; in a world of networked individuals, Hinduism respects the truths of others; in a world of open-source information-sharing, Hinduism accepts all paths as equally valid; in a world of rapid transformations and accelerating change, Hinduism is adaptable and flexible ... “
Wonderful read and reminder of why "liberal" also can mean "generous."
I relate to this deeply. I was born into Hindu culture but never felt bound to a religious identity. What I inherited was not a belief system, but a vast inner landscape — something more like a library of ways to understand consciousness, life, suffering, and freedom.
Hinduism was never meant to be a single story that everyone must repeat. It evolved as a civilization of inquiry, where sages, skeptics, householders, lovers, ascetics, and philosophers all explored reality from different angles. That is why it looks confusing or “weird” to traditions that are more centralized and doctrinal — and also why it was so psychologically and spiritually rich.
The sadness today is not that outsiders misunderstand Hinduism. That has always been the case. The deeper sadness is that it is now being turned into a rigid identity, when its original genius was its refusal to be rigid.
What drew me to the inner path was never gods or rituals, but the permission to question, to experience, and to walk inward in my own way. I hope that spirit of inner freedom is not lost.
According to this article
"In a world where resistance to authority is growing, Hinduism imposes no authorities; in a world of networked individuals, Hinduism respects the truths of others; in a world of open-source information-sharing, Hinduism accepts all paths as equally valid; in a world of rapid transformations and accelerating change, Hinduism is adaptable and flexible, even introducing the world’s oldest and farthest-reaching affirmative action program in the Constitution to overturn the institutional hierarchies of the orthodox caste system—which is why it has survived for nearly 4,000 years. And why a committed liberal can so easily embrace it."
If that's really the case then
1 Why Hinduism is the only religion which is attacked/targeted mostly by Liberal gangs?
2 why all the burden of practising secularism only goes to hindus's shoulder?
Hinduism is able to tolerate even atheists then why are you being so dogmatic about vaidic hinduism now? Allow it take whatever form it(Hinduism )wants to take to tackle 21st century challenges .
After all hinduism has never been a static religion it has evolved overtime then why are you stopping its natural evolution now?
What makes you feel that it has reached at it's optimum evolution level that you are trying to obstruct it by claiming that you are the original hindu . Let's the hindus decide which version they chose for their future.
Answers to "If that's really the case":
1) No it isn't
2) No it isn't
Hindutva (people should refuse to go by that "Vedic Hinduism" PR name) damages India, and it damages Hinduism. Many reasonable Hindus see Hindutva it as a moment of insanity, with all the anti-scientific nonsense it pushes. It's not a natural evolution, it's an illness.
Evil is and always was a childish idea. Calling someone evil was an excuse not to understand how someone got messed up, and was powerless to help us decide if/when we might be able to fix them or stop others from becoming like them.
No, we don't live in the world of Clockwork Orange. We have laws that set some boundaries. We can make them more stringent if we see sufficient abuses, and we've already done so bit by bit over the decades.
The state is not the enemy, at least not in most western societies; it's society's biggest tool for self-betterment. Likewise, we're not talking about replacing morality with medicine, simply fixing severe defects in our morality like the childish idea of evil. Medicine can help people with their behaviour. It's not the only route; it's important people also learn and value self-restraint.
You have given great points by saying that Hinduism is a religion which is never static but it evolves and it should evolve its natural way just like a river , we should not force a dam on it .
The frog doesn't know that there exists a world outside the well.
Mr Tharoor, I agree with most of your points but "Mahatma" Gandhi who encouraged fathers to have their daughters killed for being raped, told Jews to commit mass suicide during the Holocaust, and slept next to underaged girls to "test his celibacy" was definitely not more liberal than Narendra Modi. I do have some qualms with our country's current leadership but Hinduism is certainly evolving in a better way than what it was under Gandhi and Nehru's leadership.
I agree with you...
Well said . I agree with your points fully .
Loved, loved, loved this. Such an important and beautifully argued piece
I am in total agreement with Mr. Tharoor’s definition of Hinduism and his chronicling of what it has become today.
I have grown up in a household that practiced the original undiluted form of Hinduism with each one of us having full liberty to choose the way of life we wanted, of course within the moral framework of honesty, integrity and humanity. I have seen inter-religious marriages in my family accepted without much bitterness and have also seen the practice of atheism by some of the members.
As a child I remember accompanying my grandmother to regularly offer the taziya to the annual Muharram procession in my city.
Born a decade after the country’s independence, I learnt of the modified version of the Verna system, the Caste system, that was encouraged in the country during the Mughal and colonial era and the oppression and atrocities that had happened in its wake. I am also aware of the open heartedness with which a newly independent India had planned to offset the injustices of the past by provisioning for a policy of reservations in education and jobs to its oppressed classes to enable them to participate in the country’s growth.
Such a background and atmosphere had helped me grow up as a liberal individual accepting alternate ways of seeking salvation.
The point is where has this liberal way of life taken Hinduism? A substantial reduction in its population? A string of atrocities heaped on its followers with no retributions? A destruction of its system that had temples as the basic source of education, social engagement and intellectual growth?
The Constitution which I feel was compiled rather than written had left many sections fuzzily defining and restricting the role of the majority( the Hindus) in propagating or defending its rights. An incorporation of the word ‘secular’ had further liberalised the scope of other religions in matters of freedom of propagation and protection while the other restrictive clauses of the constitution made the Hindus susceptible to conversion as a result of the missionary zeal of other religions through inducement, fear or terror.
Over the last few decades one has noticed globally, the enhanced missionary zeal of some sections of Christianity and Islam, the two major religions of the world, leading to a lot of strife and also in some cases near extinction of smaller group of followers of different sects like the Kurds , the Baha’i, the Ahmedias or the Yazidis.
Hinduism following its original tenets of a peaceful co-existence has been facing the brunt of such assaults by the two big religions of the world.
From the awakening of Hindus for self-preservation and self-respect brought forth by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda to the assertive form of Hindutva professed for self-defence and retention of identity professed by Veer Savarkar, Hindus have been trying to find a clear path to survive their Sanatana dharma in a melting pot of religious extremism and supremacy.
Through history Hindus have come to know of battles having taken place to protect Dharma in case of an onslaught from adharmic or alien forces, but this facet of Hinduism has always been suppressed by the colonial masters of India through an education system that undermined its past and subsequently by its secular rulers who glorified its Mughal heritage and its British legacy while at the same time obliterating the contributions of brave Hindus who had fought these colonisers or had professed the liberal values inherent in its belief. I am talking about India as this is the only country that is home for the Hindus.
One does not have to remind the world about how remorselessly they have unseen the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir, or the decimation of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or the relentless conversions to Christianity or Islam indirectly supported by the western lobbies and aided by a fuzzy constitution that has several articles severely restricting the majority population( the Hindus) from protecting themselves or their Temples.
I eagerly look forward to Mr. Tharoor’s suggestions for survival to the Hindu of today and am hopeful that he comes out with a solution that can help.
Yes , I also want him to find a liberalistic and secularistic solution to how our religion, our faith can save itself and survive in the wake of many indiscriminations being done against it .
And I loved your reply . And don't worry " Hinduism has always survived and will survive now as well , It will keep flourishing through ages since it's the religion which has no beginning and no end ."
I really enjoyed your comment because I also agree with the thoughts on what Hinduism is and I also understand and question the survival of morality (which is what I would say instead of ‘the Hindu’).
If one is exposed to the eternal truths, through knowledge, experience, example then it is not possible to convert such a person to non truth. So if it is important to ensure the survival of these truths we must exemplify what a good life you can have when you live by them or how you can manage the dark times when you keep them close. Ostracising others /other religions by its very nature is not what the truth is about and in that way, it will never ensure the survival of 'the Hindu'.
Also, if a said ‘Hindu’ resonates more with Christianity /Islam at some point in their life but continue in their essence to be a good person, then what does it matter what book, practices, name they pledge allegiance to? Isn’t the essence of the teachings /dharma more important than the labels?
Yes , exactly "Survival of Morality "
Wonder why call Hinduism a religion rather than a way of life.
Some points that strike me:-
Religion does not evolve or change. Sanathan Dharm or Sikhism has not changed. Hinduism which I think is an aggregation of cultural fallout of some religions has changed. That is a mark of culture rather than a religion.
Hindutva is a socio-political manifestation of the Hindu Culture and hence it can be abused as a political tool. How does one abuse a religion as a political tool considering that it does not talk about politics at all. The cultural aspect of symbolic representation of a religion can always be used as a political tool and has always been used.
While the article is insightful and I always find Shashi Tharoor impressive I cannot shut my eye to the strong political leanings which I notice in his writings - a projection for a certain people’s perspective rather than the the whole. While Muslims have been lynched, so have others been and that includes Hindus. To give it a lopsided view is itself a political view of Hindutva. But then he is a politician and has political compulsions - which is fine.
All that apart, Shashi Tharoor always impresses with insights and convincing articulation.
Whitewashing hindu dogma or guilt tripping libtards ? pick your lane mr. tharoor.
When Hindu shastras ban Hindus from associating with Mlecchas is it liberal?
When Hindu Puranas condemn blasphemy is it liberal?
When Hindu scriptures criticize Atheism, is it liberal?
When Hindu rites are primarily male oriented, and our shastras imply patriarchal social norms is it liberal?
Your democratic/freedom loving concepts are no older than the french revolution and have no association with ancient Hindu society. Stupid fuck.
Hindu nationalism is Hinduism in its truest expression. Its about protecting Dharma. The Gita is the truest expression of Hindu principles which is why its so esteemed.
Of course we’re not like abrahamic religions because we’re polytheists. Our religion is philosophical and animistic.
Theirs is monotheistic and cultlike, being prophetical, not philosophical. And they are apocalyptic people.
None of this has anything to do with your stupid modernist left/right dichotomy. Our religion values duty : dharma. Not freedom. Our religion still values faith and loyalty to our ideals. You are not a Hindu if you do not agree with the concept of ParaBrahman.
Imagine being a literal wife murderer trying to lecture us on our religion. You are scum.
Patriarchy in Hinduism came in the later Vedic Period and the rules and laws were later edited otherwise there was no Varna system or Patriarchy in Hinduism.
And see , this is the beauty of Our Sanatana Dharma where we can criticise our own religious texts that whether they are ethical and morally implicated or not and can reshape them . That's why , With the evolving world , Patriarchy is not visible anymore . It will take time to completely eradicate from the roots but Hinduism is evolving itself towards a more sophisticated equality based world .
Yes , Hinduism criticises Atheism but with some logical facts and definitions .
Traditional Hindu scholars criticized Charvakas(Atheists or Nastikas) , not because they "offended God," but because their philosophy was seen as socially and spiritually destructive. Without a belief in Karma or an eternal soul (Atman), people would have no reason to act ethically (Dharma), leading to social chaos.
Hindu Puranas do condemn blasphemy and I will explain why .
In Hinduism , God is considered beyond insult. If you yell at the ocean, the ocean is not diminished. Therefore, "blasphemy" is often viewed as a sign of ignorance (Avidya) rather than a threat to the religion itself.
Moreover , if you have heard the story of Jabali and Charvaka where they were exactly insulting the Vedas or the Gods and the Hindu traditions but they were never subjected to punishments or executions. Instead , they were countered through peaceful arguments and debates .
Dharma is never about Shastras. Shastras are outward practices but not necessarily representative of Dharma.
Dharma = duty + way (morality).
Literal duties are prescribed in shastras and Vedas.
The ways of morality are prescribed as that being in line with Brahman.
Dharma is about both of these.
Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu. Varna is by Guna Karma Vibhaga, with these sayings, what shastras are banning Mlecchas? "When Hindu shastras ban Hindus from associating with Mlecchas is it liberal?" . How do they reflect Dharma?
What are you trying to point out ? Hinduism never banned Mlechhas. Instead , they criticised Mlechhas for their unethical and illogical mindsets . We can't count this as illiberal .The word "Mlecchas" has many interpretations but the main definition is that Mlechhas were those Kshatriyas or people who were unrighteous and it is definitely justifiable to criticise or ban such people in any liberal community.
Mlecchas had no varna. They don’t follow Vedic rites nor Brahman.
Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu - who said they need to be unhappy?
Thanks. We differ here. Guna is an inborn trait to anything, even to the so called inert particles. We simply call it as properties in Science. Karma is what one does. Bhagavad Gita is very clear about the role of guna karma vibhaga. That is easy to understand. Vedas do not talk about mlecchas, Do they talk about Mlecchas? and Vedic language Sanskrit has many think common with Indo European language with common words. So who are mlecchas? What is the meaning of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam?
Mlechhas are either foreigners or in a broader interpretation someone who were unrighteous. But you can't say Hinduism banned Mlechhas/foreigners. They were seen as invaders and cause of wars and death .And Hinduism never propheses on violence like those .Violence like those of the foreigners for their greed was unjustified. So, they deserved to be criticised.
Otherwise if foreigners visited our lands without an intent to conquer, we welcomed them like a guest .
In another context, Mlechhas were those kings and people who were unrighteous in their conduct . So , here also it is justified to ban them or criticise them .
Hence , Hinduism still stands as Liberal and All-inclusive cause whatever it does , it has a moral and ethical code of conduct hidden in those specific Karmas or actions .
Vedas only ‘talk’ about its ritual injunctions and Brahman.
Do Mlecchas do Vedic Samskaras? Do they follow Brahman? No.
BG is part of the Mahabharata, which has many verses condemning Mlecchas and stating their irreligiosity.
Hindu Puranas are quite clear on who Mlecchas are and aren’t - they are people beyond the pale of Bharat, who do not follow the holy rites. They’re avarna. Only India had varnashrama.
Vedas developed in India and only among Indians. Doesn’t matter if literally hundreds of years before that it has linguistic roots with IE languages. Other IE people have no Veda. Ancient Indians literally had no sense of commonality with any of these groups of people. Why do you think our scriptures disparage Yavanas or Shakas.
I agreed on most of your points but when you accuse someone of not being a Hindu since he doesn't belive in the concept of ParaBrahaman , you lost my respect . When you called someone "scum" in a peaceful debate , you lost the essence of Hinduism.
I don't belive in the concept of ParaBrahaman but rather I belive in the concept of Duality equals to Singularity equals to Plurality . We all are part of the Divine one and he is part of us .
I agree with you that Hindutva is intellectually vulgar and morally dangerous. But I differ on one point. I do not see Hindutva as a corruption of Hinduism’s liberal essence; I see it as the political maturation of contradictions Hinduism never resolved—especially hierarchy without accountability. Hindu metaphysical pluralism coexisted for centuries with social cruelty. Hindutva merely removes the philosophical restraint while retaining the structure. In that sense, it is not the betrayal of Hinduism, but its reckoning.
every religion is a contradiction in terms
But Hinduism is the only religion where its followers are allowed to criticise and contradict their own faith and Religion .
"I believe even Shashi Tharoor lacks a complete understanding of Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism permits non-belief; specifically, the Charvaka school of philosophy is atheistic. One can find references to this perspective within the Mahabharata."
Sir , we should instead preach Humanity and Morality to the world and the Indians and all the religions instead of targeting one specific religion and that is Hinduism .
This article should point out to every religion and every individual whether a Hinduism or not that he/she should practice the same "liberalistic" attitude as we are practicing and trying to make others practice .
It is not many truth actually. Only one Truth but with many names. Sarva Deva Namaskaram Keshavam prati gacchati. And Unlike abrahm religions and the school of Dvaita philosophy, God is not external to our world, but is a creater, sustainer, destroyer from within. Just like you cannot drive a car without engine, without petrol, without driver, there are no external divine to this world and everything is within this world. By law of conservation of mass, energy, there is no change in this world other than the change of forms. And Hinduism philosophy can find common grounds with modern science which other religions cannot do.