Secularism – The belief that religion should not influence or be involved in the organization of society, education, government, etc.

Unlike the Abrahamic traditions—which often center around a singular prophet, scripture, and path to salvation — Sanatana Dharma embraces a diverse spectrum of beliefs that allow for polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, and even atheism within its fold. Philosophical schools like Advaita, Dvaita, and Charvaka coexist, each offering different views on divinity and existence. The Rig Veda proclaims, “Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti” — Truth is one, the wise call it by many names.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, on the other hand tend to emphasize one God, one Book, one Path, a missionary impulse, often tied to salvation through belief and the concept of “Kaafir” or “Heathen” for those outside the faith. This exclusivity can sometimes clash with the inclusive worldview of Sanatana Dharma, especially when secularism is interpreted through a Western lens that assumes religion must be kept out of public life entirely.

India’s secularism isn’t about rejecting religion, it’s about equal respect for all religions. It aligns more with Sanatana Dharma’s ethos than with that of Western secularism. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, it encourages coexistence, not erasure. So when people urge Hindus to be “more secular,” it’s worth asking: Are they overlooking the deeply inclusive and non-dogmatic nature of Sanatana Dharma itself?

Remember this is what Swami Vivekananda claimed about Sanatana Dharma. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation.

The concept of secularism came up in the European countries, because of the Church influencing the decisions of the State. The Church decided what laws should be laid down, outlawed criticism of Christianity, declared anyone rebelling as heretics. Galileo’s heliocentric theory, which placed the sun at the center of the solar system, directly contradicted the Church’s geocentric view. In 1633, he was tried by the Roman Inquisition and forced to recant his findings under threat of torture. The Church’s objection wasn’t just theological — it was about maintaining authority over truth itself. Darwin’s theory of evolution, published in On the Origin of Species (1859), challenged the literal interpretation of Genesis. While Darwin himself didn’t see his theory as incompatible with belief in God, many religious institutions did. The backlash was intense, especially from those who saw evolution as undermining divine creation.

In some Islamic countries, blasphemy laws have been used not just to protect religious sentiments but to suppress dissent and control minorities. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, for instance, have led to imprisonment, mob violence, and even extrajudicial killings. The laws are often vague and weaponized, with accusations sometimes stemming from personal vendettas or political motives.

What’s striking is how secularism — especially in its European form — emerged as a safeguard against this kind of religious overreach. It wasn’t about erasing religion, but about ensuring that no single belief system could dominate public life or suppress inquiry. Unlike the European experience, where scientific thought often clashed with religious dogma, ancient Bharat nurtured a symbiotic relationship between spirituality and scholarship: Priests and scholars operated in distinct yet respectful spheres — religious duties were rarely weaponized to suppress scientific exploration. Thinkers like Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskara II published groundbreaking works in astronomy and mathematics without fear of persecution. The Kerala School of Mathematics developed infinite series centuries before Newton and Leibniz — again, without ecclesiastical backlash.

When Brahmin scholars advised kings, it was often in the realm of ethics, administration, and ritual timing, not censorship. Their role was more akin to cultural custodians than enforcers of orthodoxy. Even in temple settings, astronomy was used to calculate auspicious timings, not to police cosmological theories. The pursuit of knowledge was seen as a dharmic duty — a path to understanding the cosmos and one’s place in it. The concept of “Rta” (cosmic order) encouraged alignment between natural laws and human conduct. This worldview fostered curiosity, precision, and tolerance, rather than fear or dogma.

The idea that all paths lead to the Divine is not just poetic — it’s foundational. The Upanishads speak of “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma” — All this is Brahman — affirming the sacredness of all existence.
The Vedas welcome multiplicity: “Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti” — Truth is one, the wise call it by many names. This is why temple rituals, philosophical debates, and folk traditions coexist without contradiction — each is a valid expression of the sacred.

India’s soil has long been a refuge for Jews fleeing Roman and later Portuguese persecution found safe haven in Cochin and Maharashtra. Parsis, escaping Islamic conquest in Persia, were welcomed in Gujarat in the 8th century. The Qissa-e-Sanjan beautifully narrates how they were allowed to preserve their faith while integrating respectfully. Even European Jews during WWII sought asylum in India — a testament to the enduring spirit of compassion.

Arab Muslim traders were part of India’s vibrant maritime economy — especially in Kerala and Gujarat. They respected local customs and were welcomed. The Muslim invaders, however, brought a different ethos — one of conquest and religious exclusivity. Historical records document the temple desecrations by rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb. Massacres and forced conversions, especially during periods of political instability. And yet, resistance was fierce — from Rajput warriors to tong-wielding sadhus and Sikh fighters defending sacred spaces.

What’s striking is that Bharat’s resistance wasn’t born of religious intolerance — it was a defense of dharma, of cultural integrity. Hindus didn’t retaliate against peaceful communities. The fight was against destruction, not difference. Sanatana Dharma doesn’t just preach tolerance — it embodies it, embraces diverse paths to the Divine, from Bhakti to Jnana to Karma to Yoga. It reveres multiple deities, philosophies, and even atheistic schools like Charvaka.It teaches “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” — the world is one family — not as a slogan, but as a lived reality.

This isn’t a borrowed virtue. It’s woven into the DNA of the tradition, long before secularism was coined in Europe. Many Abrahamic traditions — especially in their orthodox forms — define salvation through exclusive belief. Christianity and Islam often classify non-believers as infidels or Kaafirs, with consequences ranging from spiritual condemnation to social exclusion. The missionary impulse is strong — conversion is seen as a moral imperative. Historical episodes like the Crusades, Inquisitions, and blasphemy laws reflect this exclusivity.

Do Hindus need to learn tolerance, from traditions that preach exclusivity, punish dissent and view pluralism as heresy. Instead, the world could learn from Sanatana Dharma’s quiet confidence — its ability to coexist, absorb, and evolve without losing its essence. Hindus are not against secularism, what we are against is the kind of pseudo secularism, being practiced since 1947, which is nothing more than minority appeasement and vote bank politics.

The term pseudo-secularism gained traction in post-independence India, especially from the 1950s onward, as a critique of policies that seemed to favor minority communities for political gain. Leaders like K.M. Munshi and L.K. Advani used it to describe a form of secularism that prioritizes vote-bank politics over national interest. Examples often cited include the Shah Bano case, where a Supreme Court ruling was overturned to appease conservative Muslim voices. The Haj subsidy, religion-based reservations, and differential treatment of religious institutions have also been flagged as signs of imbalance.

Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, was given a funeral attended by thousands — reports suggest 10,000–15,000 people, with speculation that Dawood Ibrahim’s network may have influenced attendance. S.A. Basha, mastermind of the 1998 Coimbatore blasts, received a massive funeral procession with 1,500 police deployed to manage crowds.

These events are seen by many as symbolic failures of the state to uphold moral clarity — not because Muslims attended, but because convicted terrorists were given public farewells that resembled martyrdom. Hindus aren’t asking for special treatment, but for equal scrutiny and accountability. When secularism becomes a tool for selective outrage, it loses credibility. True secularism should mean equal condemnation of extremism, whether it comes from majority or minority quarters.

The bans on The Satanic Verses and The Da Vinci Code were driven by fears of offending religious minorities. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie was banned in India in 1988 after protests from Muslim groups. Ironically, the ban was recently lifted because the original notification couldn’t be found. The Da Vinci Code faced bans in several Indian states due to Christian groups claiming it hurt religious sentiments. Yet, Hindu beliefs and practices are often subjected to mockery or misrepresentation in media and academia — and when Hindus protest, it’s sometimes dismissed as intolerance. This asymmetry leads many to question whether secularism is being used as a shield for selective appeasement, rather than as a principle of equal respect.

Christian and Muslim-run institutions enjoy constitutional protections under Article 30, which allows minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. These colleges can reserve seats for their own communities, often up to 50% or more. Hindu-run institutions, however, are not considered “minority” under the law — because Hindus are the majority nationally — even if they are minorities in specific states or regions. This creates a paradox, a Hindu college in a Muslim-majority area cannot claim minority status. But a Muslim or Christian college in a Hindu-majority state can — and does.

This legal framework, while rooted in historical protections, is increasingly seen as outdated and inequitable, especially when it restricts Hindus from enjoying the same institutional autonomy.
If secularism means respecting all faiths, then Hindu concerns must be treated with equal seriousness. If minority institutions can reserve seats, then majority institutions should have comparable rights, especially in regions where Hindus are numerically fewer.

The 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley remains one of the most traumatic chapters in post-independence India. Over 90,000–100,000 Pandits fled their homes amid threats, targeted killings, and Islamist insurgency. Massacres like Wandhama, Nadimarg, and Prankote saw entire families wiped out. Yet, for decades, this tragedy was underreported, underacknowledged, and rarely taught in mainstream discourse. Despite the scale of suffering, the “genocide” label is often contested in academic circles, and the media coverage has been sporadic — leading many to feel that Hindu pain is politically inconvenient.

India’s blasphemy law — Section 295A of the IPC — criminalizes deliberate insults to religious beliefs. But it’s often invoked in cases involving Muslim or Christian sentiments, such as bans on The Satanic Verses or The Da Vinci Code. Meanwhile, mockery or misrepresentation of Hindu deities in media or academia is frequently dismissed as “freedom of expression.” Hindus accused of blasphemy — or even those supporting controversial views — have faced violent reprisals, such as the Udaipur beheading in 2022. This asymmetry leads many to ask: Is secularism being applied fairly, or is it tilted toward appeasement?

When Muslims or Christians are attacked, it often sparks, national and international outrage, media blitz, political statements, and civil society mobilization, UN reports and global scrutiny. But when Hindus are victims, especially in cases like, Kashmiri Pandits, blasphemy-related violence and temple desecrations or forced conversions, the response is often muted, delayed, or buried under “complexity.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that no religious structure — temple, mosque, church, or gurdwara — should be built on public land without proper authorization. But in Chennai, a mosque constructed without planning permission was ordered to be removed, with the Court stating: “Whatever is illegal has to be demolished. This is not the way to preach religion.” Similarly, land disputes involving temples and mosques — like the one in Delhi’s Jai Hind Camp — have sparked political and legal battles over ownership and encroachment.

We seek protection of temple lands from illegal occupation or politicized interference, equal enforcement of laws across all religious communities and preservation of cultural heritage, especially when temples are not just places of worship but repositories of history, art, and identity. Mosques and churches have every right to flourish — within the bounds of law and mutual respect. But when sacred Hindu spaces are encroached upon or politicized, it’s natural for communities to feel compelled to defend them — not out of hostility, but out of cultural stewardship.

Many Hindus feel that while they uphold “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” — respect for all paths — this openness is exploited. Islamist groups may push narratives that vilify Hindu practices while demanding protection for their own beliefs. Missionary organizations, in some regions, have been accused of aggressive proselytization, often accompanied by denigration of Hindu customs. Left-liberal circles, especially in academia and media, sometimes frame Sanatana Dharma as inherently oppressive — ignoring its pluralistic, philosophical depth.

The Dravidianist rhetoric in Tamil Nadu, amplified by political figures like Udhayanidhi Stalin, has compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria. The Church-Dravidianism nexus, as explored by Manoj Jwala, highlights how colonial-era missionary agendas sought to fragment Hindu society by fabricating the Aryan-Dravidian divide. The Isha Foundation, a prominent spiritual institution, has faced what some call ideologically motivated attacks — with allegations that later appear questionable or politically timed.

Sanatana Dharma teaches “Live and Let Live”, but that doesn’t mean accepting abuse in silence. Hindus have historically welcomed Jews, Parsis, Buddhists, and others — not out of obligation, but out of civilizational hospitality. But when that hospitality is met with propaganda, distortion, or hostility, it’s natural — and dharmic — to stand up and speak out. Hindus aren’t demanding that others worship their deities or adopt their customs. What they seek is, fair representation in media, education, and public discourse, protection of sacred spaces from encroachment or politicization and equal scrutiny of all ideologies — not selective outrage.

The term pseudo-secularism has come to represent a distorted version of secularism — that, appeases vote banks rather than upholding equal respect for all faiths, silences Hindu voices while amplifying selective outrage, protects minority sentiments even when they glorify convicted extremists, while Hindu concerns are dismissed as communalism.  As this opinion piece from News18 argues, decades of political signaling have encouraged certain groups to remain in perpetual victimhood, while discouraging Hindus from asserting their cultural identity. The result? A civilizational confidence eroded, replaced by hesitation and defensiveness.

True Indian secularism — as envisioned by the framers — was meant to respect all religions equally, not favor one over another, protect sacred spaces, not politicize them and uphold dharma, not dilute it for expediency. But over time, policies like differential treatment of religious institutions, selective bans on books, and unequal reservation rights have created a skewed playing field. As Legal Service India’s analysis notes, the inclusion of “secular” in the Preamble via the 42nd Amendment was more symbolic than structural — and its implementation has often contradicted its spirit.

We are going to fight back, to reclaim temple lands and traditions, to challenge ideological aggression with philosophical clarity, to reject labels like “communal” or “fascist” that are weaponized to silence legitimate concerns. This isn’t about exclusion — it’s about restoring balance. And it’s not just political — it’s civilizational.

Sources:

www.theindosphere.com/religion/the-essence-of-sanatan-dharma

www.adikkachannels.com/sanatana-dharma-and-secularism-a-journey-through-ancient-philosophy-inclusivity-and-modern-relevance/

www.timeslife.com/life-hacks/hinduism-vs-abrahamic-religions-differences/articleshow/118548929.html

www.hinduinfopedia.org/sanatana-dharma-secular-and-inclusive-values-of-hindu-philosophy/

www.newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church

www.undeceptions.com/articles/does-the-theory-of-evolution-conflict-with-christianity/

www.christiantoday.com/news/pakistan-to-investigate-harms-caused-by-blasphemy-laws

www.pasmandademocracy.com/culture-and-heritage/2024/11/blasphemy-laws-in-islam-balancing-faith-freedom-and-justice/

www.historyrise.com/ancient-indias-contributions-to-mathematics-and-astronomy/

www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-muslim-invaders-and-british-rulers-killed-over-300-million-people-in-india-still-no-memorial-for-hindu-holocaust-11831111.html

www.patheos.com/blogs/hindu2/2018/11/a-brief-list-of-the-destruction-of-temples-in-ancient-india/

www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dawood-diktat-behind-crowd-at-Yakubs-funeral/articleshow/48398394.cms