1

Acts
Academy of Higher Education

In partial fulfilments of the requirement for the course of : (M.R.S.M): Modern

Religion And Secular Movement In India.

Assignment on: India is a land of religious philosophies and movement

.substantiate the view.

Submitted to :

Prof Dr.jacob .v

Submitted by :

Yureingam

Date

Class : M.DIV III

 2

Introduction

India offers a unique plurality of traditions, religions, languages and societies yet it is able
to maintain unity in diversity. It is in this context one cannot claim to be exclusive and
undermine the others as inferior. It could be in his or her belief, tradition or language.
Hinduism which is one of the largest religions in India, known as the most tolerance,
inclusive and pluralistic religion is now somehow seems to be seen the opposite. The reasons
for this are caused due to the fanatic interpretation and personal ideology to promote in the
name of Hinduism. Many have failed to see Hinduism nowadays as what she usually is. It has
become necessity to re-read and re-learn Hinduism or else Hinduism is seen to be failing to
fit in the context of Indian plurality. This paper intends to achieve the said goal by revisiting
the basic elements of Hinduism and also by considering and looking into some of the Indian
eminent elite, scholar, politician, philosopher and religious leader works and contributions.

1. Nutshell Understanding of Hinduism

Hinduism is the predominant religion in the Indian subcontinent. It is often referred to as

Sanatana Dharma, a Sanskrit phrase meaning “eternal law”, by its followers. Generic “types”
of Hinduism that attempt to accommodate a variety of complex views vary from folk and
Vedic Hinduism to Bhakti tradition, as in Vaishnavism; Hinduism also includes yogi
traditions and wide span of “daily morality”, based on the notion of karma and societal norms
like Hindu marriage customs.1

Among its origin is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, and as such Hinduism
is frequently said to be the “oldest religious tradition” or the “oldest living major tradition.” It
is formed from diverse traditions and types and does not have a single founder. Hinduism is
the third largest religion following Christianity and Islam, with approximately a billion
followers, of which 905 million live in India. Other countries with vast Hindu populations
can be found all across southern Asia.2

Hinduism has been compared to a huge Banyan tree which keeps growing and developing
ever new roots that transform into trunks, from which grow new shoots and branches, again
and again. The intense intellectual quest that led to the development of numerous
philosophical schools concerned with universal issues. There is great diversity of sects among
Hinduism, such as Vaisnavism, Saivism, Saktism and their subdivisions, which separates
Hindus into many different and sometimes competitive communities. 3 Thus Hinduism is a
vast religion or a vast tradition or simply put a way of life.

2. Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva

1
Chitralekha Singh Prem Nath, Hinduism (New Delhi: Crest Publishing House, 1996), 47.
2
P.D. Mathew, S.J. Hinduism, Hindutva and Secularism (New Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 1999), v.
3
Klaus K. Klostermaier, Hinduism: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford: One world Publication, 2009), 4.
 3

The very significant person who presented the Hindu values of life in the West is none
other than Swami Vivekananda. In the World parliament of Religion in Chicago 1893 address
Hinduism in its core essence stating that Hinduism promotes not only tolerance but universal
acceptance. He makes a strong statement, “I am proud to belong to a religion which has
taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal
acceptance but we accept all religions are true.”4 This really constitutes the real Hindu which
accommodates every people in spite of culture, religion and so on. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
prime minister of India has opined that “being Hindu means all things to all men.”5

Now to ascertain what Hinduism and what it means to be a Hindu it is pivotal to look into
important figures in the history of India. Congress MP Tharoor said about Hindutva and
Hinduism. Tharoor stresses that the name “Hindu” itself denotes something less, and more
than a set of theological beliefs. In much language, French and Persian amongst them, the
word for “Indian” is “Hindu”. Originally, the word Hindu means the people beyond the River
Sindhus or Indus, which is now in Pakistan. To make matter worse the word “hindu” did not
exist in any Indian language till it is used by foreigners who gave a term for self definition.
Hinduism is thus the name that foreigners first applied to what they saw as indigenous
religion.6

Hinduism accommodates all forms of beliefs and worship within it. It incorporates
contradictories belief even atheism. Tharoor states that the Hindutvadis way of Hinduism is
totally contradicts to the Hindu scriptures, practices and conducts. 7 He strongly opposed that
the Hindutvadis notion of Hindu or Hinduism is not the Hinduism that the freedom fighters
Gandhi, Nehru, and other leaders tends to be.

Poulumi Banerjee quoted Shashi Tharoor differentiation of Hindutva and Hinduism,

“Hindutva has nothing to do with Hinduism as a faith or a religion, but rather as a badge of
cultural identity and an instrument of political mobilisation,” and “Hinduism is a religion
without fundamentals – no founder or prophet, no organised Church, no compulsory beliefs
or rites of worship, no single sacred book.8 What we see today as Hindutva is part of an
attempt to ‘semitise’ the faith – to make Hinduism more like the ‘better-organised’ religions
like Christianity and Islam, the better to resist their encroachments.”

Gangadhar Tilak adopts a more succinct definition, suggesting that “a Hindu is he who
believes that the Vedas contain self-evident and axiomatic truths,”9 Mahatma Gandhi states
that he who has belief in the Vedas, the Upanishads, all that goes by the name of Hindu

4
Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda (Chennai: Manonmani Publishers, 2015), n.p
5
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India ( London: Oxford University Press, 1985), n.p
6
Shashi Tharoor, Why I am Hindu (London: C. Hurst and Co., 2018), 14.
7
Ibid
8
Poulumi Banerjee, "Hinduism vs Hindutva: The search for an ideology in times of cow politics" in Hindustan
Times, April 10, 2017.
9
Shashi Tharoor, Why I am Hindu (London: C. Hurst and Co., 2018), 15.
 4

Scriptures, the various incarnations of God, rebirth, varna and ashrama, protection of the cow,
and no disbelief in idol worship is a Hindu.10

For Dr. Radhakrishnan, Hinduism is not a definite dogmatic creed, but a vast complex,
but subtly unified mass of spiritual thought and realisation (The Hindu way of life, 1927) and
he embraced with that of universal acceptance view of Swami Vivekananda. The spiritual
leader Dada Vaswami calls Hinduism variuosly, ' a fellowship of faiths, a federation of
philosophies, and a league of religions'.11 Having seen the different notions of the important
figures in India, Hinduism really can be put in phrase that is “acceptance of plurality” which
is the foundational philosophy of Vedas.

3. Hindu Fundamentalism

The main objective of Hindu religious-nationalists is to establish Hindu rule in India: To

spread Hindu values and to defend Hindu society from alien religions, cultures, and
ideologies. Among prominent Hindu fundamentalist groups are, R.S.S. (Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh), V.H.P. (Vishva Hindu Parishad) and Shiv Sena. Since the early 1980s,
these groups, to a certain extent, have been responsible in inciting communal violence against
religious minorities in India.12

These Hindu fundamentalist groups are vehemently against the idea that ethno-religious
minorities should have equal rights with Hindus. Within these groups, R.S.S. in particular,
ultimately aims to make India a Hindu nation (Hindu rastra) and considers political ideas of
secularism, democracy, and Westernization unfit for Indian culture. Hindu fundamentalist
forces have become emboldened since the Bhartiya Janta Party (B.J.P.), the Hindu nationalist
party, came into power in 2014 and elected Narendra Modi (a full time R.S.S. member) as the
Prime Minister of India. Hindu fundamentalism has succeeded in threatening publishers to
withdraw publications, exerted pressure to censor films deemed offensive to their political
agenda, and silenced critical voices contesting the Hindu religious myths and legends.13

The killing of journalist Gauri Lankash14 in 2017, who was critical of the right-wing and
of Hindu nationalism, and of violence in the wake of the controversial movie, Padmavati 15,
shows that such fundamentalist forces are restricting free expression by creating a climate of
fear.

The fear of the mob is so palpable that even after a court order lifted restrictions on James
W. Laine’s book on Shivaji, bookshops are still unwilling to stock it. Thus, forces of

10
Ibid
11
Ibid
12
Kailash Kumar Chatry, Understanding the Religious Nature of Terrorism in India: Four Case Studies with an
Analysis for Proposal and Resolution. (Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2012), 12
13
Rajeev Dhavan, Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India (New Delhi: Tulika Books,
2008), n.p
14
https://www.theoslotimes.com/article/india%3A-killing-the-sane-voices-. (Accessed on 25/09/19, time 2:11
pm).
15
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42048512. (Accessed on 25/09/19, time 2:11 pm).
 5

fundamentalist Hindutva are posing serious challenges to the freedom of expression and
liberal voices in India.16

4. Tolerance and Intolerance in Hinduism

Non-Hindu ideas about Hindu tolerance are closely tied up with non-Hindu ideas about
Hindu pluralism: if they can tolerate all those gods (the argument goes), with all those heads
and all those arms, if they can entertain all those different concepts of divinity, they must be
able to tolerate the different concepts of divinity expressed in different religions. Should not
many heads have many minds?

What, then, are we to make of a statement like this?

The spirit of broad catholicism, generosity, toleration, truth, sacrifice and love
for all life, which characterizes the average Hindu mind not wholly vitiated by
Western influence, bears eloquent testimony to the greatness of Hindu culture.
. . . The non Hindu peoples in Hindustan . . . must not only give up their
attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land . . . but must . . .
stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming
nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even
citizen’s rights.17

This argument—that, since Hindus are, as is well-known, the most tolerant people in the
world, they deserve to have the land of India to themselves, and therefore the (less tolerant)
Muslims should be disenfranchised—was made in 1939 by Madhav Sadhashiva Golwalkar, a
leader of the RSS, or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (“National Association of Volunteers”),
a Hindu nationalist association. Many Hindus still regard Golwalkar as a hero, and the RSS is
still active in Indian politics.

So is the paradox embodied in Golwalkar’s statement: some Hindus who pride

themselves on their religious tolerance still use the same oxymoronic phrases to justify their
intolerance. In 1966, the Indian Supreme Court was called upon to define Hinduism because
the Satsangis claimed that their temples did not fall under the jurisdiction of certain
legislation affecting Hindu temples. They argued that they were not Hindus, in part because
they did not worship any of the traditional Hindu gods; they worshipped their founder,
Swaminarayan (1780-1830), who had declared that he was the Supreme God. The Court
ruled against them, citing various European definitions of Hinduism including Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan’s (the belief “that truth was many-sided and different views contained
different aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a
spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of
view”) and B. G. Tilak’s (“ . . . recognition of the fact that the means to salvation are diverse;

16
S.Tripathi, Fear of Mob. In Imposing Silence, The Use of India’s Laws to Supress Free Speech. A Joint
Research Project by the InternationalHuman Rights Program at the University of Toronto, and PEN Canada
(Toronto: University of Toronto, 2015), n.p.
17
M.S. Golwalkar, We, Our Nationhood Defined (Nagpur, India: Bharat Prakashan, 1939), 48-49 [2d ed. 1947,
55-56].
 6

and realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is
the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion”).18

Now, the Satsangis brought their case to the Court in order to challenge the 1948
Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, which guaranteed Harijans (also called Untouchables or
Dalits) access to every Hindu temple. What irony there is in the fact that the legal ruling that
defined Hinduism by its tolerance and inclusivism was actually inspired by the desire of the
plaintiffs to exclude certain Hindus from their temples. Moreover, when another case brought
to the Indian Supreme Court in 1996 charged twelve members of nationalist parties, including
the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party or “Party of the People of India”), with violating a law
against promoting enmity on grounds of religion, race, community or language, the judge
ruled in their favor, arguing that their 3 concept of Hindutva (“Hindu-ness,” a territorial and
racial conception of Hinduism) was a “way of life” (here quoting another part of the Satsangi
definition of Hinduism) and so “could not be equated with ‘narrow fundamentalist Hindu
religious bigotry.’ ” That is, Hinduism might be a religion, and bigoted, but Hindutva was
just a way of life, and hence not bigoted.19

The members of the RSS and the BJP are often loosely referred to as Fundamentalists.
Whatever “Fundamentalism” implies (and there is much debate about this), it tends to include
pejorative implications of intolerance—both within the Fundamentalists’ own tradition (a
kind of orthodoxy, or conservatism, narrowing the tradition and curtailing deviation and
diversity) and toward other peoples’ traditions (bigotry toward or hatred of other traditions
that disagree with them, such as science, to take a case at random). Hindu Fundamentalists,
like Fundamentalists in general, accept and defend only one narrow piece of the diverse
tradition. Often, Fundamentalists selectively appropriate the tradition to hearken back to a
golden age that is understood to have been lost; in India, this is the age of the Veda.
Increasingly, the Veda is also associated with ethnicity and nationalism; in India these forces
are crystallized in the concept of Hindutva. Of course, inevitably, any worshiper, or any
scholar for that matter, will focus on a small fraction of a great religious tradition, but most of
us will acknowledge that there are things we do not know or, perhaps, things we know and do
not like about aspects of a tradition, and let it go at that. But Fundamentalists want to destroy
or deny all of the tradition outside of their narrow swath. In the recent past, they have
threatened, sometimes with death, the authors of books that do not present the view of
Hinduism they endorse, and they have tried to introduce into school textbooks, both in India
and in the state of California, statements about Hinduism for which there is no scholarly
support whatsoever. In this, as in much else, their agendas resemble those of Christian and
Muslim Fundamentalists.20

Originally a Christian phenomenon, Fundamentalism colonized other religions, too; the

term was applied to Hinduism as early as 1957: “Fundamentalism in religion and the
18
Ronojoy Sen, “Legalizing Religion: The Indian Supreme Court and the Homogenization of the Nation” (Ph.D.
diss., University of Chicago, 2005), 6-38.
19
Wendy Doniger, “Many Gods, Many Paths: Hinduism and Religious Diversity,” in
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/022006/manygods_manypaths.pdf
(Accessed on 24/09/19, time 12:37).
20
Ibid
 7

Hinduization of the national historical myth were made possible [in India]. . .by the historical
and religious work of Europeans.”21 In many ways, Hindu Fundamentalism, while protesting
that it is a reaction against European pressures (Golwalkar’s “not wholly vitiated by Western
influence”) simultaneously apes Protestant evangelical strategies, with its emphasis on the
priority of personal experience (conversion and re-affiliation) justifying a new definition of
“Hindu” which has to do with an experience of Hindu-ness (“if you do not meditate, you
cannot understand the Upanishads).22

The Oxford English Dictionary cites “Liberalism and Modernism” as the opposites of
“Fundamentalism.” Certainly, Hindu tolerance was dealt a terrible blow when the Babri
mosque in Ayodhya was torn down in 1992 as a result of a dispute: the argument turned on
whether Mir Baqi, a general of the Mughal emperor Babur (1483–1530), had built his
mosque at Ayodhya over a temple commemorating the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama.
Although there was no evidence to confirm either the existence of the temple or even the
identification of the modern town of Ayodhya with its legendary predecessor, it was in fact a
widespread custom to build religious structures on the grounds where previous religious
structures had stood—mosques over temples (or Buddhist stupas), and temples 5 over
mosques (or Buddhist stupas). During the 1980s, as the Hindu Right rose slowly to power,
Hindu organizations began holding rallies at the site, campaigning for the rebuilding of the
temple. Finally, during the 1992 rally, leaders of the BJP whipped a crowd of 200,000
militants was into a frenzy. Shouting “Death to the Muslims!” the mob attacked the Babri
mosque with sledgehammers. As William Dalrymple recently put it, “One after another, as if
they were symbols of India’s traditions of tolerance, democracy, and secularism, the three
domes were smashed to rubble.”23

But surely something remains of the ancient tradition of tolerance. Many forms of
Hinduism are alive and well and living both in India and throughout the world, some of them
known only to scholars, others known only to a few devotees—and, of course, these two
groups often overlap. There are many sorts of Hindus, most of whom justify Golwalkar’s
boast of generosity and tolerance, the tolerance that Radhakrishnan rightly identified as an
essential part of Hinduism, but these Hindus do not make sensationalist headlines like the
others. Hindus who represent precisely what they want and need in the fight against Hindu
Fundamentalism.24

5. Re-reading Hinduism in the Context of Indian Plurality

21
Leonard Binder, “Pakistan and Modern Islamic- Nationalist theory: Part 1,” Middle East Journal 11:4
(1957):382-96, 391.
22
Wendy Doniger, “Many Gods, Many Paths: Hinduism and Religious Diversity,” in
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/022006/manygods_manypaths.pdf
(Accessed on 24/09/19, time 12:37).
23
William Dalrymple, “India: The War Over History,” The New York Review of Books, 7 April 2005, 65.
24
Wendy Doniger, “Many Gods, Many Paths: Hinduism and Religious Diversity,” in
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/022006/manygods_manypaths.pdf
(Accessed on 24/09/19, time 12:37).
 8

Intolerance and exclusivism are prevailing much in today’s Indian politics, socio-
economic and religious trends. Often Hinduism has been misinterpreted and used it for
promoting such ideology, however, in an actual sense that are just an opposite of what
Hinduism really is. Out of many things the following things can be considered to re-read and
re-learn Hinduism in the context of Indian plurality.

5.1. Hindutva is Exclusive and Intolerance

Hinduism, while keeping itself pegged to the Vedas, is a poignant and dynamic religion
that adapts itself to the changing social, cultural, economic, scientific and technological
advancements. It shows us the way to creative living and efficient ways of life fulfilment.

While some religions may claim that they are exclusive repositories of truth, “The Key to
understanding Hinduism is that it is one faith that claims no monopoly on the truth.”
Followers of Hinduism understand that the path adopted by them for salvation may not
necessarily be the only path. Tolerance of other viewpoints is a cardinal virtue of Hinduism.25

VD Savarkar was the first to use the term “Hindutva”-Hinduness or Hindudom-the

essence of Hinduism, in his ‘Hindutva-or who is a hindu?’ According to him, Hindutva is not
only a history of the spiritual or religious life of the Indian people but a history of entire
civilisation. Hindutva “embraces all departments of thought and activity of the whole being
of our Hindu race.” It is more “comprehensive, inflexible, concrete, and well defined than
malleable and amorphous Hinduism.” Savarkar was not happy with his use of the term
Hindutva. Left to himself, and constrained by limitations of grammar of the English language
he would have preferred the use of the term ‘Hinduness’.  Savarkar rejected the use of ‘ism’
as in ‘Hinduism’ because by “an ‘ism’ it was generally meant a theory or a code more or less
based on spiritual or religious dogma or system.”26

According to Savarkar, Hindutva’s aim is to “reacquire territory, rehabilitate religion,

preserve Vedas and Shastras, protect cows and Brahmins, and establish suzerainty and
diffusion of Hindu fame and glory.” The first requisite of a follower of Hindutva is
citizenship of Hindustan either by himself or through his forefathers. Savarkar says every
person was a Hindu who regarded this land as his ‘Fatherland’ as well as his ‘Holy land’ –
the cradle land, that is, the land of the origin of his religion.27

Adherence to a religion of Hindustani origin, for example, “Vedicism, Sanatanism,

Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Dev Samaj, Prarthana
Samaj” is its second perquisite. Unquestioning faith in the scriptural authority upon which
these are based, and a firm faith in the basic religious tenet(s) that they espouse, is its third
prerequisite. Allegiance to any religion whose origin is not Indian – for example Judaism,

25
Ashok Vohar, “Hinduism is Inclusive, Hindutva is exclusive,” in
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/hinduism-is-inclusive-
hindutva-isexcluisve published on June 27, 2 2018 (Accessed on 24/09/19, time 3:00 pm).
26
Ibid
27
Ibid
 9

Christianity and Islam – cannot be the constituent of Hindutva.  Geographical criterion

according to Savarkar is the sole criterion of comprehending Hindutva and its others.28

Savarkar held that Hindus were bound together not only by “the tie of the love they bore
to a common ‘Fatherland’, but also by the tie of the common homage they paid to their great
civilisation” – loyalty to Hindu civilisation and culture, represented by “a common history,
heroes, literature, art, law and a common jurisprudence, fairs and festivals, rites and rituals,
ceremonies and sacraments and language (Sanskrit)”.29

Believers of the doctrine of Hindutva adhere to Hinduism but all those who adhere to
Hinduism do not necessarily believe in the doctrine of Hindutva. Only those who trust in the
political power aspect of religion trust this doctrine. This shows that contrary to Savarkar’s
belief that ‘Hindutva is much wider than Hinduism’, it is the other way round. Many has
often intermingled Hindutva with Hinduism and that is where the problem arises. Hindutva is
just a political ideology based on Hinduism and mostly to promote nationalism. This should
not replace Hinduism and narrows the vast traditions of Hinduism into a confined political
ideology. That is where Hinduism is seen as an intolerance and exclusive religion or tradition.

5.2. Hinduism is Inclusive and Tolerance

The term ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin word ‘religare’ which means ‘to bind
together’. Each religion does so by developing novel and exclusive devotional practices, and
adhering to a code of conduct. A common feature of all major religions is the belief that there
exists a supernatural being that may be called ‘God’. The other feature is having a specific
sacred scripture like Torah, Bible or Quran, for example. 

Hindus do not profess allegiance to any one book, scripture or doctrine. Charvakas and
Samkhayas did not even accept the authority of the vedas. There are no pre-determined
religious practices. One may worship once or twice daily, weekly, monthly, annually or
never. One may be vegetarian, non-vegetarian or even an Aghori, who eats human flesh and
excreta, and who continues to be a Hindu. One may fast on certain days of the month, on the
birthdays of the innumerable gods and goddesses, or on some other special day. Or never
keep a fast and still be a Hindu. One may believe in one or a plethora of gods or goddesses or
in none of them and still be a Hindu. The notion of God is not central to Hinduism. A set idea
of godhead has no place here. Underlying the acceptance of multiplicity of godheads and
ways of worship is the principle that though the Supreme may be One, It can be attained
differently from different standpoints. This attitude not only removes antagonism but also
promotes sympathy for all religions. It makes Hinduism inclusive. It assimilates the gods of
other religions and their teachings into itself.30
28
Ibid
29
Ibid
30
Ashok Vohar, “The Inclusive Nature of Hinduism,” in https://www-speakingtree-
in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.speakingtree.in/article/the-inclusive-nature-of-hinduism/m-lite?
amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQEAFwAQ%3D%3D published on September 15, 2014 (Accessed on 22/09/19,
time 3:00 pm).
 10

The inclusive character of Hinduism is best illustrated by the description of the genealogy
of mlechhas, their language and religious practices in Pratisargaparva, Part I, chapter 161 of
the Bhavishyapurana. Therein it is said that Adam and Eve (Howwa), following the dictates
of Vishnu, were initially living a celibate life in the garden admeasuring about four kosas in
the Eastern part of the city provided to them by Him and were always meditating on Him. But
Kaliyuga in the form of a serpent lured Eve to eat the evil fruit.31

This amounted to violation of Vishnu’s orders. Consequently, Adam and Eve had several
sons. They and their progeny are called mlechhas. The duties of the mlecchas are “to worship
Vishnu, fire, and practise ahimsa, performing tapas (penance), and live a celibate life”.

The progeny of the mlecchas, the descendants of Adam and Eve, is traced as follows:
Shweta,→ Anuha,→ Keenash,→ Virad,→ Hanooka,→ Matocchil,→ Lomak,→
Nyuha,→{Seema, Hama, Yakuta}→→ and so on. It goes on to say “Moosha is the chief
preacher of mlecchas and is responsible for the spread of their religion.”  About the origin of
the Brahmi script, too, it says that “this script which is written from right to left was invented
by Nyuha (a descendant of Adam and Eve) under the direct inspiration of Vishnu.32

According to Bhavishyapurana while “The language of the mlecchas has four lakh minor
variants, Yavani (Greek) and Gurundika (English) are its chief forms”. It goes on to say, “Just
as in Prakrit language ‘paneeya’ (water) is called ‘paani’, and ‘bubhuksha’ (hunger) is called
‘bhookha’, in the English language ‘pitri’ is called ‘pater – father’ and ‘bhrati’ is called
‘bathar – brother’. Similarly ‘ahuti’ is ‘aaju’, ‘jaanu’ is ‘Jainu’, ‘ravivara’ is ‘Sunday’,
‘phalgun’ is ‘February’ and ‘shashti’ is ‘Sixty’.” 33 Its inclusive nature is an exclusive
characteristic of Hinduism. To play with it is to rob Hinduism of its essence.

 “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” is a Sutra quote from of all the over one hundred
Upanishads. This aphorism means: “That which exists is ONE, sages call it by various
names.” This idea from Upanishads is ingrained into the civilised civilisation of India for
thousands of years resulted in the extreme tolerance of Hindus on the whole. Jains and
Buddhists capitalise on the idea of co-existence and tolerance. This idea was further
expanded in urging the masses to see ‘HIS’ presence, God’s presence, in every atom of the
Universe; and this generated the presence of same, ONE, soul in all living things.34

In the ‘Gita’ it was most emphatically stressed when lord Krishna tells Arjuna that the
Soul is Immortal, it is fallacy that you can kill anybody or anybody can kill the Soul;
therefore soul can neither be killed nor it can kill. If soul is one in every one and soul is
immortal then what was the need to fight a battle like Mahabharata? This is because same
very soul when takes a cover of human body due to Karmas it also acquires ill and good

31
Ibid
32
Ibid
33
Ibid
34
Prakash Bajpai, “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti,” in
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.speakingtree.in/blog/ekam-sat-vipra-bahuda-vadanti/m-lite
published on August 19, 2012 (Accessed on 24/09/19, time 3:04 pm).
 11

virtues. Therefore a good virtuous soul-body must destroy an ill virtuous soul-body. This
should be the practice of life. Life is not meant to tolerate ‘ill’ and become a subjugated
insect-like living creature. Lack of this awareness destroys the fundamental law of the
Universe of “Unified ‘One’ Energy”—Ekam Sat…”35

Many Teachers, who thought otherwise, taught and are teaching that their propounded
way is ‘the only way’ to realise immortality of one’s (already immortal) Soul, but to acquire
physical pleasure of the body through soul. If their followers thought fit to ‘Impose’ their
views on others in the hope to increase and add to their pleasure of thought and for a wishful
after death pleasure also then they will indulge in bringing people to their fold. The means
adopted to convert to their fold may be any and many; they may say that achieved end will
justify the means. The weak in their belief will try to convert those who are weak in their
convictions. Thus they prepare a clan of weaklings en-mass in the name of God. But those
who see ‘ONE’ in every one, should they submit to such forceful conversion to other belief in
the name of TOLERANCE? Tolerance does not mean to become loose in discrimination
between a right idea and a forced idea in any way. These people should   convince others into
right idea that need it and convince them to follow the Universal Law of “Ekam Sat Vipra
Bahudha Vadanti”. Lord Krishna made Arjuna   to fight his brothers for a right idea; saying
“Hato Va Prapyasi Swargum Jitva Bhokshayse Maheem…’’ 36 It is in this backdrop one can
observed that Hinduism is inclusive and tolerance in its very nature and character.

Conclusion

One of the most contestable co-options by the ruling party camp has been that of spiritual
leader and patriot Swami Vivekananda, who is being projected as the pioneer saint of the
ideology of Hindu supremacy or “Hindutva.” As anyone moderately familiar with the life,
writings, speeches and actions of Vivekananda would know, nothing can be more erroneous-
and unjust-that his perceptions of his legacy. The broad humanism and the global religious
amity that he preached and strive for all his life were poles apart from the cold bigotry of
Hindutva. Indeed, if the Hindutva brigade ever makes an effort to understand the true spirit of
Vivekananda’s life and work it would recognise in him not a friend, but a foe. For, it was
against all narrowness and fanaticism that Vivekananda’s religiosity positioned itself. It was
inclusiveness and tolerance inherent to Vedic Hinduism-as opposed to sectarianism
characteristic of Hindutva-that Vivekananda espoused and preached.37

Hinduism, for Gandhi, was not exclusive, but a broad and inclusive faith, a tolerant and
open-minded religion, accommodating the best in other religions. He explains the
quintessence of Sanatani Hindu in the following words, “…In spite of being a staunch Hindu,
I find room in my faith for Christian, Islamic and Zoroastrian teachings…mine is a broad
faith that does not oppose Christians-not even a Plymouth brother- nor even the most
35
Ibid
36
Ibid
37
Suparna Banerjee, “Revisiting the legacy of Swami Vivekananda Hinduism against Hindutva,” in
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/mirror-and-a-lamp/revisiting-the-legacy-of-
swami-vivekananda-hinduism-against-hindutva/ (Accessed on 20/09/19, time 12:46).
 12

fanatical Mussalma. It is a faith based on broadest possible toleration. I refuse to abuse a man
for his fanatical deeds because I try to see them from his point view… It is a somewhat
embarrassing position, I know-but to others, not to me.” 38 For him, the Varnashrama dharma
was universal law which has nothing to do with superiority and inferiority. As he himself put
it, “My Varnashrama enables me to dine with anybody who will give me clean food, be a
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parasi, whatever he is. My Varnashrama accommodates Panchama
families with whom I dine with greatest pleasure, to dine with whom is a privilege.” 39 Thus
his faith Sanatana Dharma and Varnashram did not come in the way of his respect for diverse
religious traditions and equality of all people irrespective of caste and creed.

Shashi Tharoor in his book, “Why I am a Hindu?” writes with his voice firm and gentle,
in equal parts. He alternates between reminding the reader of Hinduism’s pluralistic glory and
warning her of the perils of confusing it with narrow and bigoted notion of Hindutva. He
concluded that “Taking back Hinduism,” in this he means to say to bring back the real
essence of Hinduism; which is tolerance, inclusive, secular and humane.40

It is in these backdrops one need to understand and re-read Hinduism in the context of
Indian plurality. Many of the prominent Indian figures did not interpret Hinduism in such a
narrow interoperation as did or do by Hindutva. Hinduism as a religion it is more or less a
way of life. There is a tendency among Hindus or fundamentalists today that they have gone
adrift from the remarkable philosophical underpinnings of their own religion. It is a religion
based on the profundity of thought. It has emerged from a great intellectual journey.
Hinduism stands as a Sanatan Dharma-but it is reducing to its lowest common denominator
by self-anointed but illiterate protectors of the religion. Hinduism is also reduced in the name
of religion to violence or hatred, or moral brigades in the name of Hindu culture, or self-
anointed evangelists introducing the element of ‘competitive Hinduismness.’ Hinduism is not
a brittle simplicity; it is a complex range of profound thoughts. It is for that very reason,
inclusive rather than exclusive. It is eclectic rather than intolerant. This is the greatness of
Hinduism and that comes from its philosophy. To box Hinduism into a philosophy or
ideology of Hindutva, it simply means narrowing down Hinduism into a finite ideology, an
exclusive and intolerant religion which is just a contradiction of Hinduism and cannot fit in
the Indian context of plurality.

Bibliography

Bajpai, Prakash “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti,” in

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.speakingtree.in/blog/ekam-sat-vipra-bahuda
vadanti/m-lite, published on August 19, 2012. Accessed on 24/09/19, time 3:04 pm.

38
Harijan, Young India, 22-12-1927.
39
M.K. Gandhi, My Varnashrama Dharma, np
40
Shashi Taroor, Why I am I Hindu (India: Aleph Book Company, 2018), 267-294.
 13

Banerjee, Poulumi. “Hinduism vs Hindutva: The search for an ideology in times of cow
politics” in Hindustan Times, April 10, 2017.

Banerjee, Suparna. “Revisiting the legacy of Swami Vivekananda Hinduism against

Hindutva,” in
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/mirror-and-a
lamp/revisiting-the-legacy-of-swami-vivekananda-hinduism-against-hindutva/.
Accessed on 20/09/19, time 12:46.

Binder, Leonard. “Pakistan and Modern Islamic- Nationalist theory: Part 1,” Middle East
Journal 11:4 (1957):382-96, 391.

Chatry, Kailash Kumar. Understanding the Religious Nature of Terrorism in India: Four
Case Studies with an Analysis for Proposal and Resolution. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2012.

Dalrymple, William “India: The War Over History,” The New York Review of Books, 7 April
2005.

Dhavan, Rajeev. Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India. New Delhi:
Tulika Books, 2008.

Doniger, Wendy. “Many Gods, Many Paths: Hinduism and Religious Diversity,” in
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/022006/manygo
s_manypaths.pdf. Accessed on 24/09/19, time 12:37.

Gandhi, M.K. My Varnashrama Dharma.

Golwalkar, M.S. We, Our Nationhood Defined. Nagpur, India: Bharat Prakashan, 1939, 48
49 [2d ed. 1947, 55-56].

Harijan, Young India, 22-12-1927.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42048512. Accessed on 25/09/19, time 2:11 pm.

https://www.theoslotimes.com/article/india%3A-killing-the-sane-voices-. Accessed on
25/09/19, time 2:11 pm.

Klostermaier, Klaus K. Hinduism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: One world Publication,

2009.

Nath, Chitralekha Singh Prem. Hinduism. New Delhi: Crest Publishing House, 1996.

Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. London: Oxford University Press, 1985.

S.J, P.D. Mathew. Hinduism, Hindutva and Secularism. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute,
1999.
 14

Sen, Ronojoy. “Legalizing Religion: The Indian Supreme Court and the Homogenization of
the Nation”. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2005.

Taroor, Shashi. Why I am I Hindu. India: Aleph Book Company, 2018.

Tripathi, S. Fear of Mob. In Imposing Silence, The Use of India’s Laws to Supress Free
Speech. A Joint Research Project by the InternationalHuman Rights Program at the
University of Toronto, and PEN Canada.Toronto: University of Toronto, 2015.

Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda. Chennai: Manonmani

Publishers, 2015.

Vohar, Ashok “Hinduism is Inclusive, Hindutva is exclusive,” in

https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit
page/hinduism-is-inclusive-hindutva-isexcluisve published on June 27, 2 2018.
Accessed on 24/09/19, time 3:00 pm.

Vohar, Ashok. “The Inclusive Nature of Hinduism,” in https://www-speakingtree

in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.speakingtree.in/article/the-inclusive-nature-of
hinduism/m-lite?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQEAFwAQ%3D%3D published on
September 15, 201. Accessed on 23/09/19, time 3:00 pm.