There is a bitter truth that many contemporary Hindutva supporters need to confront. Today, we see a rise in self-proclaimed “kattarwadi” (extremists) who proclaim that their “race” is in danger and must be defended at all costs. To justify their aggression and exclusionary acts, they often lean on distorted religious doctrines and cherry-picked phrases.
The most prominent among these is the Sanskrit phrase: “Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah” (धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः).
Literally translated, it means “Dharma protects those who protect it.” It is a profound call to uphold righteousness, duty, and ethics, emphasizing that a life lived in accordance with Dharma leads to preservation and well-being. This sentiment appears in foundational texts like the Mahabharata and the Manusmriti (Verse 8.15), warning that the neglect of Dharma leads to destruction.
While the phrase itself is noble, it becomes toxic when weaponized to instill fear and judgment, most particularly against the minorities of India. Today, it serves as a motto for organizations ranging from India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). To prevent the further erosion of its meaning, we must understand the historical origin and the actual context of these identities.
The term “Hindu” was never originally a religious signifier. In the primary texts of the Vedas, the word is nowhere to be found. In fact, there is no explicit term in ancient Sanskrit texts that refers to the people of India in religious contrast to “Abrahamic” faiths, as those concepts did not yet exist.
Historically, the term “Hindu” was first used by the Persians (found in the inscriptions of Darius I) to refer to the people living beyond the Sindhu (Indus) River. Because of phonetic shifts in Old Persian, “Sindhu” became “Hindu.” It was a geographical and ethno-geographical designation, much like how we refer to people as “Europeans” today regardless of their specific religion or race. By this historical logic, any person settled in the Subcontinent, regardless of their faith, could be referred to as a “Hindu.”
Another persistent argument among modern Hindutva supporters is the claim that they are the literal descendants of mythological figures from stories said to be 5,000 years old. This narrative frequently collapses the boundary between mythology and historical data.
The contemporary population of North India, in particular, is not the “original” native population of the Subcontinent. We are the descendants of a mix of populations, including the Indo-Aryans who migrated from Central Asia between 1500 BCE and 2000 BCE. The Vedas were the product of this culture, which established a social hierarchy.
While the Indus Valley Civilization flourished around 3300–1300 BCE, the “Epic period”, when the Ramayana and Mahabharata were drafted into their current forms, occurred much later (roughly between 400 BCE and 400 CE). This contradicts the popular political rhetoric that places these specific written versions 5,000 years in the past.
To sum up, protecting Dharma is not a mandate to protect a “race” or an ethnic identity. It is a mandate to protect universal values: Equality, Social Justice, and Ethics.
Dharma essentially means “Righteousness.” However, the way religious scriptures define this righteousness must be critically evaluated through a modern lens. We must boycott the distortions that turn a philosophy of preservation into a tool of persecution. To truly “protect” Dharma, we must protect the humanity of all individuals, rather than the political interests of a few.