NEHRU WRONGED: DEVALUED HINDUISM TO A RELIGION

At the dawn of its independence, India made a civilizational blunder. It categorized Hinduism as just another religion. In doing so, it reduced one of the world’s oldest and most pluralistic philosophical systems into a narrow identity — boxed alongside Islam and Christianity, both of which are doctrinal faiths. But Hinduism — more accurately, Sanatan Dharma — was never a religion in the conventional sense. It had no founder, no central text, no fixed ritual, no institutional gatekeeping. It was — and is — a civilization in motion, a way of life shaped by experience, not enforcement.

By calling it a religion, India confused its people and corrupted its discourse. Instead of elevating Hinduism as a civilizational layer that holds the subcontinent together, the Indian state brought it down to the level of competitive faiths. This misstep did not just distort India’s internal harmony — it also denied the world a unique model of spiritual liberalism that could have stood tall above rigid, institutionalized religions.

A PHILOSOPHY, NOT A RELIGION

Organized religions like Islam and Christianity are built on a single founder, a canonical text, and a uniform path to salvation. These faiths require belief and enforce doctrine. There is little room for contradiction or improvisation.

Sanatan Dharma stands in stark contrast. It:

• Encourages multiple gods, or even none.

• Offers diverse paths to moksha — through devotion, action, knowledge, or meditation.

• Celebrates debate and paradox — the lifeblood of the Upanishads and Darshanas.

• Recognizes truth as many-sided (anekantavada), not singular or dogmatic.

This is not religion. It is spiritual architecture — civilizational, not sectarian.

That is why Hinduism, like Confucianism in China, has lasted thousands of years. It gave each individual the freedom to adopt what resonated, discard what didn’t, and draw their own wisdom — unhindered by ecclesiastical control. It endured not by uniformity, but by allowing difference.

CHINA EMBRACED ITS CIVILIZATIONAL CORE. INDIA DID NOT.

Modern China offers a telling contrast. With its mosaic of folk beliefs, Daoism, and Buddhism, China needed a unifying framework. It found that not in religion, but in Confucianism — a philosophy of ethics, social harmony, and responsibility.

• Confucianism was adopted as the cultural spine of the Chinese state — not a religion, but a shared civilizational discourse.

• It neither banned other religions nor sought converts.

• Instead, it offered a value system that quietly permeated education, governance, and public life.

India could have done the same with Sanatan Dharma. But it didn’t.

NEHRU’S BORROWED SECULARISM: A CIVILIZATIONAL BETRAYAL

Nehru borrowed secularism from the West, burying India’s own pluralism under the Church’s shadow. Whether out of ignorance or to appease religious minorities, the result was the same: Hinduism was devalued to an ordinary discourse — and 5,000 years of spiritual and intellectual heritage were lost in a single stroke.

India embraced Europe’s idea of religion — where religion meant the Church, belief was institutionalized, and the state stood apart from a single, dogmatic authority. But Hinduism never had such an authority. It had diversity, not doctrine. It had tradition, not tyranny. It had reflection, not revelation.

The secular model was a mismatch. Yet, it was applied blindly. Hinduism was boxed into the same legal and political category as Abrahamic religions — a category it never belonged to.

THE LEGAL IRONY: HINDUISM AND ITS UNWANTED UMBRELLA

This misclassification was not just philosophical — it became structural.

The Indian Constitution, in Article 25 (Explanation II), legally groups Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists under Hinduism for personal law — marriage, inheritance, guardianship. This acknowledges a shared civilizational foundation. Yet politically, these same groups are treated as separate religions — complete with different legal rights, reservations, and political appeasement.

The contradiction is glaring:

• Legally Hindu when convenient,

• Politically separate when beneficial.

In short, the state recognizes Hinduism’s inclusiveness but refuses to honor it in spirit. It reduces a civilizational umbrella into a bureaucratic fiction.

A COLONIAL INHERITANCE NEVER REVERSED

This confusion did not begin in 1947. It began under the British.

In the 19th century, the British Raj invented the term “Hindu Law”, not to preserve tradition, but to administer their colony. They imposed Christian legal frameworks on Hindu customs — turning fluid, diverse practices into rigid rules.

• Hindu marriage, succession, caste, and rituals were all forced into categories modeled on European jurisprudence.

• Oral traditions became written codes. Context was stripped away. Flexibility was lost.

• And worst of all, the idea of a monolithic “Hinduism” was born — shaped by colonial needs, not Indian reality.

Independent India had the chance to reverse this distortion. It chose instead to continue it.

WHAT INDIA SHOULD HAVE DONE — AND STILL CAN

It is not too late.

India can still:

• Reclaim Hinduism as a civilizational ethos, not a competing religion.

• Treat Sanatan Dharma as the layer of eternity — a shared cultural consciousness that welcomes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, tribal traditions, and even Sufi Muslims within its moral scope.

• Replace imported secularism with an indigenous pluralism, where the state respects all beliefs but recognizes the unique cultural role of Sanatan Dharma in Indian identity.

Just as Confucianism became China’s ethical compass without religious confrontation, Sanatan Dharma can guide India’s soul without needing to dominate the political space.

CONCLUSION: RECLAIM THE LOST DISCOURSE

Sanatan Dharma was never meant to compete in the marketplace of religions. It was meant to uplift the entire marketplace — offering each seeker their own path, their own god, their own moksha.

India’s mistake was not in choosing pluralism — it was in misunderstanding its own. Hinduism was reduced to a boxed religion. Its civilizational depth was lost beneath Church logic and European categories. Its dignity was sacrificed at the altar of secular uniformity.

But Sanatan is not fragile. It is eternal.

It does not need defense. It needs recognition.

Let us restore what was not broken — only misnamed.