Hinduism - Neither a Dharma nor Universal in concept, philosophy or appeal

As usual, my relative and an unabashed Hindu nationalist spares no opportunity to sing praises of his religion and considers the imposition of a Hindu system and creed as the solution to every perceivable problem faced by India

In response to an email chain on the spate of recent corruption scandals in  India, he went to the extent of saying that "Collective Actions were required to get rid of these Great Defects in our Current Culture & System especially by those , who believe in the greatness of 'Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Samaj, Hindu Dharma & Hindutva".

To which I responded saying  we must drop this Hindu label now and forever.
The term and name is divisive and no longer serves the goal of national unity and renewal

Dharma or justice or ethics or values, however we look it is social, national and universal. It is either just Dharma or Indian Dharma not any Hindu or X or Y Dharma. The best expression of that Dharma is the sovereign Constitution of India which expressly debars narrow and sectarian ideological and political ideas and affinities like Hindu Samaj, Hindu Rashtra and Hindutva (or for that matter Christian or Muslim identities) and treats all citizens equally. We collectively have never been true to the spirit of this Constitution.

While we have Hindu roots and origins, our visions and values must be Indian with both a national and global focus

Indian ethos (combination of culture, religion and society) contains in it not just Hinduism, but an eclectic mix of  Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Sufism and even some aspects of Islam of Mughal pedigree. This is a great inheritance, too precious to be forsaken in the obsession with Hindu purity.


I had my honeymoon with Hindutva some time ago, but now I have long outgrown it and moved past it. While I have complaints with current leadership of India, I have greater dread and fear of organizations like VHP, HJS and RSS, Shiv Sena (which are a sectarian nightmare) who are even less qualified to navigate India to its cherished goal of a resurgant, responsive and responsible yet secular system. 

Obviously this did not go down well with our unrelenting Hindu apologist. He responded with this pompous declaration about Hinduism: 

"Hindu Dharma or Sanathana Dharma is Universal ; Inclusive in its Concept , Philosophy,  Appeal. In fact there was no other religion in this world at the time of the origin & growth of Hindu Dharma. There is NO sectarianism in this Grand Dharma and philosophy."

I countered with this point by point response and a brief preface

Claims of the greatness of Hinduism cannot be established by grand statements and declarations, but have to be backed by evidence and support from history, which is conspicuously lacking. So I will proceed to rebut each one of your points using evidence from history and current affairs.  

Your Point : Hindu Dharma or Sanathana Dharma is Universal & Inclusive in its Concept, Philosophy & Appeal. 

My Counterpoint: This is a very vague and general statement with too many words thrown in more for effect than for conveying any proper meaning. So I need to break up this point and then address/contradict it properly

Your subPoint 1: Hindu Dharma or Sanathana Dharma

My Counterpoint: What do you mean by Dharma? Dharma has many meanings in Sanskrit like religion, justice, ethics, duty, responsibility and more. Which one are you referring to ? It most probably implies religion, since there is no such thing as a Hindu or Sanatana justice, ethics, duty or responsibility. Coming to things like duty and respect to elders which Hindu religion and culture enjoins upon its followers, it is not universal or inclusive given its absolutist position(like laid down by elders, society, shastras, Vedas etc.) and the fact that concepts of duty, responsibility, obligations ought to be determined by relative merit, need and circumstance. 

If religion is what is really meant by Dharma, surely Hinduism is not all inclusive or universal given that it is ‘for, by and of’  the 3 Upper Castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya & Vaisya) who are also called the Dvijas or twice-born in most of the scriptures and shastras including the Upanishads. Hinduism, for all practical purposes excludes the OBC, sudras, dalits and chandalas. These classes represent almost 60-80% of the Hindu population (Estimates are varying obviously), but that is still more than half of all Hindus. For them the religion is not Hinduism but Manuism. This casteist, discriminative and inhuman facet of Hinduism has been in place for almost 3000 years and is not a recent development. But from the Gupta period onwards (approx 1700 years ago), we can start tracing strong evidence of this kind of rigid social segregation and stratification. 

Hinduism was also intolerant of other philosophies, which originated in its own soil like those of Buddhism and Lokayata. Buddhism was banished from India by 800 CE and there is a definite Vedic/Hindu hand in it, though other factors contributed too. Adi Sankara is extremely disdainful in his references to Buddhists and the ‘coincidence’ of the demise of Buddhism and Sankara’s rise is a matter of skeptical curiosity and concern.

Vedic Hindus were even more ruthless in destroying the Lokayatikas and followers of Charavakas and their works. Other than the main compilation of D Chattopadhyaya (which is still fragmentary) there is no trace of ancient Indian works of philosophic materialism, except as ‘purvapaksha’ references in orthodox texts.

In a different way Vedic Hinduism also destroyed better, logical and reasonable philosophies like Sankhya (secular naturalism), Nyaya (Logic) and Vaisesika (Atomism) and on its ashes, hoisted the flag of the theological junk called Vedanta

Just because Hindus did not succeed in subduing Islamists and Christians does not mean that Hinduism had a tolerant or inclusive outlook

Hinduism also has a heritage of Xenophobia, which negates the claim of its universality. Foreigners are termed as ‘mlecchas’ in old Indian texts which is a term as derogatory as chandalas. British rule and their education system exposed this taboo of Hindu culture on foreign travel, against which even Brahmins had to revolt!

Hindu Dharma as contained in its Vedic and Puranic scriptures and shastras has no philosophy (humanism, equality, fraternity etc.)  of any worth. Any philosophy that it has, is inherited from influence and confluence of other religions and thought systems coming into contact with it.   

Thus Hinduism of pure Vedic/Shastra/Purana heritage has very little Dharma or philosophy in it. Neither is it  Santana (pre-existing or timeless), which will be obvious from my reply to next point below

Your Point: In fact there was no other religion in this world at the time of the origin & growth of Hindu Dharma.

My Counterpoint: This is a tall claim without any factual basis or evidence. To make this kind of claim one has to totally and willfully ignore or dismiss the wealth of archeological and other evidence that is publicly available.  The notes below will expose the baseless nature of this claim.

The Indus civilization (IVC) predates the Vedic Civilization by 1000 years or more. IVC did not surely follow the religion of the Vedas. IVC did have a religion or religious practices. Then there is the Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian civilization that are older than  Vedic Civilization. They had their own distinct religions. So there is no exclusiveness about the antiquity of the Vedic Religion. 

During the growth ( 1000 BCE to 0 CE) phase of the so-called Hindu Dharma, it was not a lone star . It had for company the Greek, Roman(part-Judaic), Norse and Celtic faiths.  

Besides how can we forget that Jainism, Buddhism, Sramanism (Ajavikas, Tantrics) most likely preceded Puranic or even arguably Upanishadic religion of Hindus. 

While Vedic/Puranic Hinduism succeeded in absorbing most of Jainism, it failed with the integration of Buddhism and the inevitably ensuing clash of these two incompatible ideologies, resulted in the death of Buddhism in India.

Your Point: There is NO sectarianism in this Grand Dharma & philosophy

My Counterpoint: It only shows that you neither know nor understand what sectarianism means. The deep-rooted and pervasive nature of casteism itself shows that Hinduism is sectarian to the core. Hinduism stands for the welfare of only some privileged classes. Calling something ‘Grand’ does not make it ‘Grand’. 

It is difficult and almost impossible to convince a Hindu that his/her religion is devoid of any philosophy other than following observances, rituals, rules and taboos. But that is the sad reality.