“For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” – Matthew 23:12
India is often described as a deeply religious nation. But given the persistent tensions and hatred, one has to ask: are we truly “religious” in a moral sense? Stereotyping is an ugly practice, but the evidence of conflict is undeniable. India is a secular, diverse home to countless religions and sects, yet religious tensions have plagued us for centuries, most notably since the era of Mughal imperialism. The Partition of 1947 stands as a horrific testament to this failure, resulting in bloodshed so extreme that accounts describe trains arriving at their destinations filled only with dead bodies. The hatred was so consuming that people did not hesitate to behead and kill their neighbors.
Is this religion? Definitely not. The violence, which still flares up intermittently, suggests a deeper underlying problem. While I don’t claim to have the exact answer, my observation is that this intense, core-level mutual hatred between Hindus and Muslims is significantly more prevalent in poor communities who never had the opportunity to educate themselves. This lack of opportunity makes them fertile ground for manipulation. The mutual hatred can be traced, not to foreign ancestry, but to the deep scars of the caste system within Hinduism itself. Historically, nearly all Indian Muslims are believed to be descendants of lower-caste Hindus who primarily converted to Islam to escape the brutal persecution and structural oppression enforced by the upper castes, especially during the Mughal period. Over centuries, their offspring forgot the initial fight between castes, and the bitterness morphed, taking on purely religious grounds. In fact, Muslims in the Indian subcontinent often share little genetic ancestry with the original Arabian Muslims. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru reinforced this historical dynamic, noting that Hindus were not, and are not, a proselytising race, while Muslims were keen on proselytising and gaining converts.
The challenge of this entrenched bitterness was apparent even to the nation’s founders. Mahatma Gandhi wrote with anguish: “My error! Why, I may be charged with having committed a breach of faith with the Hindus. I asked them to befriend Muslims… Even today I am asking them to practise Ahimsa, to settle quarrels by dying, but not by killing. And what do I find to be the result? How many temples have been desecrated? How many sisters come to me with complaints? … Hindu women are in mortal fear of Mussulman goondas… I can only do so by laying down my own life. I can teach them the way to die my own example. There is no other way…”
I believe Gandhi’s outlook was perhaps too optimistic. He famously wrote, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Yet, he was not unaware of the negative historical acts, and he understood the need for accountability, once stating, “Muslims must realize and admit the wrongs perpetrated under the Islamic rule.” Despite his complexities and his awareness of historical wrongs, I still believe he never fully grasped that people, regardless of their race or religion, possess a full spectrum of moral character. The continued aggression in India is largely fueled by persistent poverty and generational dissociation from education, not simply faith.
In recent years, this bitterness has been amplified, especially with the rise of right-wing parties and the widespread distribution of state propaganda. Though Hindu nationalism may be viewed as a product of Islamic extremism, the root problem is not solely a reaction to external hate. Considering the historical context of the caste system, Hindus must accept responsibility for creating the internal divisions that made conversion, and therefore conflict, possible. I believe that nearly every systemic problem in India is ultimately rooted in the caste system, an ancient structure, developed by Indo-Aryans, that was devolved into a destructive, rigid, and dogmatic cage.
When comparing ourselves to the world, the contrast is stark. The Europeans succeeded in breaking the rigid and dogmatic systems of their past, leading to the Age of Enlightenment and the developed, mature societies of the European Union today. India has progressed, but the pace is slow because the general public remains reluctant to adopt fundamental changes. This contrasts with the Middle East, which has developed economically through oil wealth, yet whose society remains intellectually backward, often due to theocratic governance. India has the opposite dilemma: a promising democratic structure, but a populace reluctant to evolve socially. This social rigidity is ironic when considering our past. As Nehru wrote in Discovery of India, “The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure… In technique and in the methods of production and industrial organization, they were inferior to what prevailed then in India.”
My own studies of the Vedas suggest the Vedic society was indeed far ahead of its time, contributing profoundly to cosmology, philosophy, medicine, and mathematics. In fact, the number system we use globally originated with the Hindus. It was only renamed the Arabic numeric system because when Muslims encountered it during their invasion of India, they recognized its superior efficiency, translated it into Arabic, and then diffused it to Persia, Greece, and eventually the Roman Empire. Finally, we must consider the long view. Islamic civilization is relatively young, only 1400 years old. It is currently moving through the same stages, social, political, and philosophical, that Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist civilizations have already navigated. In another 500 to 1,000 years, Islamic civilization will likely reach a stage of maturity where nations realize past mistakes, rectify them, and give way to a new political order. The Hindus could have reached this level of global competition much earlier, but the long era of imperialism prevented this maturation. In this regard, China, despite its ethically questionable communist approach, has managed its internal system better for global competition than modern India has.
Notice – This article is a chapter from Glimpses of My Worldview (2025). It is being republished here on my blog as part of a complete serialization of the work.