Are Christian and Muslim nations ok and Hindu nations not?

I wonder who influences whom: the Indian mainstream journalists the foreign correspondents or the other way round, as they always hold the same view. Or is there even a directive from the top of the media houses about who must be protected and who can be abused?

Obviously, Hindus can be abused. I recently checked articles in major newspapers like the New York Times on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’ where minorities have no place. The articles peddled untruths and drew unacceptable conclusions. The Swiss NZZ for example wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. Why are these ok, and a Hindu nation is not ok? They don’t explain; they just insinuate that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will suffer in a Hindu nation.

Maybe they came to this conclusion because minorities like Jews or Hindus suffer in certain Christian or Muslim nations though the media hardly pulls those countries up for it. However, even otherwise, this conclusion is wrong, as Hindus have a different mind-set. They are open towards other views, unlike ‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.

Hindus cannot be put into one single box. There are too many different ways to reach the goal of life. As it were, there are many minorities within Hinduism. But they all are based on the Vedic insight that everything, including our persons, is permeated by the same divine essence which is called by many names but is ultimately ONE. Our human consciousness (Atman) is one with the cosmic consciousness (Brahman) and to realize this, is the goal and fulfillment of life. “Satyam vada, Dharmam chara” the Veda exhorts – speak the truth and do what is right under the given circumstances. And find out who you really are: you are not a separate entity but in the depths of your being one with all.

From this follows that ‘good’ Hindus are those rare human beings whose dharma makes them regard all others as brothers and sisters. Their dharma makes them further respect nature and not harm unnecessarily any living being.

Hindus do not, unlike Christians and Muslims, divide humanity into those who are chosen by God and those who are eternally damned. Hindu children are not taught to look down on those who are not Hindus, unlike children of the dogmatic religions who are taught that their God does not love those others unless they join their ‘true’ religions.

Hindus are also comparatively kinder to animals. The great bulk of vegetarians worldwide are Hindus.

Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign lands. In fact, they didn’t need to, because they convinced most of Asia merely by solid arguments.  Yet, for the past thousand years Hindus were at the receiving end of jihads and conversion campaigns and millions of Hindus were killed in cold blood because they were Hindus.

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

The concept of Divinity is also different. For Hindus the best description for the absolute truth is sat-chit-ananda (it is true, aware and blissful). The many personal gods help the devotee to realize the Absolute. Christians and Muslims perceive Divinity in its highest form as a personal, superhuman entity who is jealous of other gods. The first commandment in Christianity and a very important issue in Islam is the claim that nobody must worship other gods except the ‘one true god’, which both religions claim is only with them.

In all likelihood the Hindu view comes closer to truth. When the first translations of Vedic texts appeared in the west, the greatest minds in Europe were greatly impressed by Indian thought. It did spread among scientists, too, who used it to push the frontiers of science further. It is no coincidence that modern science discovered that all is one energy after Vedanta became known in the west. It is also no coincidence that the Church lost much of its power in Europe when some of India’s wisdom filtered down to the masses

Why then are the media worldwide so worried about a nation where the Hindu roots are fostered? Where Sanskrit is taught, which is the most perfect, dignified, powerful language on earth and which is useful even for NASA? Where yoga is practised in schools, which is an ideal means for all-round development and which, on a deeper level, helps to find fulfilment in live? Where Vedic philosophy is studied, which inspired the new scientific discoveries for example in nuclear physics? Where the amazing wisdom of Mahabharata and Ramayana becomes common knowledge, which is already taught in business seminars abroad? Where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpey dumpey, which happens already in certain schools in the west?

Yet as soon as Hindus make suggestions for India to keep its Hindu character or rather, to gain back its Hindu character, as even after Independence, the youth was encouraged to abandon it, there is an outcry by the media that “Hindu fundamentalists” want to make India a Hindu nation and exclude religious minorities. Ironically, ‘Hindu’ is a geographical term, with the same root as Indian – people who lived beyond the Sindu or between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean.

So why would Indians who rather recently converted to Islam or Christianity not be proud of the achievements of their ancestors? India was the cradle of civilization, a knowledge hub and the richest country on earth. It was known for its wisdom. Greeks, including Pythagoras, are said to have come to India for knowledge and today everybody knows his name, but not the name of the Indian mathematician (Baudhayana) who originally discovered the Pythagoras theorem. Surely Christians and Muslims cannot have any objection that students are taught this fact or the fact that the Rishis of the Rig Veda (10.22.14) knew many thousand years before Copernicus that the earth goes around the sun. Surely they also cannot have any objection that students chant “May all be happy” in Sanskrit, the language of their forefathers. If someone calls such teaching communal it is malicious. If someone objects to this teaching, should not he be shouted at by the media instead of those who want to revive their ancient culture? Is not he the one who tries to divide society and not those who say “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (all is one family) due to their philosophical outlook?

Hindus are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact.

Why then are Hindus of all people accused of excluding others?

The reason may be this: neither the west nor Muslim countries want a strong India.  India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture, India may rise again to the top. Is it the media’s job to put Hindus perpetually on the defensive by spreading this bogey of Hindu fundamentalism and prevent a better education policy which would give India an edge?

“Imagine, India would become a Hindu nation!” the media shout infuriated. The problem, however, is that they don’t imagine it and don’t ask basic questions. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe for harmony and peace in the world.

One day, when people have become tired of blindly believing strange things, and when nobody is threatened any longer with dire consequences if he stops believing in those strange things, the world may be grateful to Bharat Mata that she has conceived and preserved over millennia those eternal, precious insights for the benefit of humanity.

By Maria Wirth

PS: I thought the above article was clear, but since some comments argue that a Hindu nation is not secular, a few more points:

A Hindu nation has no blasphemy laws.

There is not one way but many different ways to connect with and worship the Divine. Yet truth naturally is One. It is ‘That What Is’. It is not a mental concept contained in a book.

Questioning the different paths is not forbidden, but encouraged.

In short, common sense and one’s own conscience are not suspended in favour of a doctrine that needs to be blindly believed.


It is no coincidence that secularism was ‘invented’ in the west to keep the influence of Christianity out from the state. When the term ‘secularism’ was introduced in the Indian constitution, right at that time there was the need to scrap the different personal laws based on religions. It was not done. So India is not secular in the original meaning of the term.

Hindu is basically a geographical term, as mentioned in the article.

It would be beneficial, if other nations copied the open-minded Hindu approach.

So the answer to the question posed in the title, would be:

Hindu nations (based on the eternal principles of the ancient Indian tradition) are ok and Christian and Muslim nations (based on fixed, unverifiable, must believe dogmas) are not.

Maria Wirth



  1. Maria is trying to Christianize or Islamize Hinduism …! India is a country where Hindus and other minorities are present . This is a secular nation because all of us (our ancestors) fight bravely for getting freedom . Our National leaders have made a decision that the rights of all people groups will be honored in the newly formed nations . This nation should follow the directives made by the fathers of this nation. Untied we will stand , divided we will fall. Fundamentalism is against the concept of modern India . All nations in the world can follow this concept , “Unity in diversity ” , the motto of modern India , which is highly rooted in Hinduism. But you don’t want to talk about it instead take the old concept of polarizing nations based on religion.

    1. You seem to have missed the can you claim the author is trying to christianize Hinduism? Her point is, Hinduism is inherently secular and secularism would be better served in a Hindu country than in a Christian or Muslim country. She has expressed surprise that the media accepts it without battling an eyelid when Cameron describes England as a Christian country or America is described as a Christian country but works itself up to a lather when India is described as a Hindu country.

      1. Thank you

  2. · · Reply

    Indian Independence Movement was not about a free Hindu nation. Also Independent India was not about a Hindu Nation. The participants of Indian Independence Movement were Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and so on. The constitution of India states India a secular state. The notion of making India a Hindu nation is a hypocrisy by radical HIndutva proponents and some Hindu intellectuals because they fear intellectual dialogue with respect to religion and about God. So, India cannot be a Hindu Nation. So, this emotional and illogical appeal is not rational but I doubt it has an hidden agenda. And also see who has promoted this?

    1. I promote this. A spanish HIndu who regards Bharat as my Mother (and with familiar links with India). So being marxist and Islamist or Christian or pro-either of the three is “secular”, but being HIndu is being radical?

      “Secularism” is a notion absolutely alien to the Indian ethos. It comes from Europe when, after the MIddle Age, the power of interfering of the Catholic Church was so strong in every affair, that they had to look for a solution in which state and religion (CATHOLIC Christian religion, not any) would be absolutely separated. Why? Because Catholic Church wanted everybody and everything to be seen from a Christian view, and that was preventing very much the advance of science, when instead of letting scientists do their jobs, everything had to be in accordance with the Bible.

      The result of this artificial imported concept in India is that in India the things are working, theoretically, in a “secular” way, but practically, in an anti-Hindu way and pro-minorities. Because both religions want everybody to become on their fold through conversions. It is in the core of their dogmas, unlike Sanatana Dharma.
      A Hindu India, also in my view, would comply much more with a REAL concept of secularism: freedom for ALL to practice their religions. Because conversion IS NOT IN THE CORE of Hinduism.
      This is the gist of all the story why a Hindu nation could work as REALLY secular, without favouring anybody just because of the religion that s/he belongs. But favouring or helping whatever individual in need.

      Mainstream media parrots and defends the world “secular” meaning in reality “pro-minorities” and “anti-Hindu”. That is NOT secularism. They do not even know what it is. Only the western masters say it is good, so they have to say it is good.

      1. Hans Grob · ·

        “”Because Catholic Church wanted everybody and everything to be seen from a Christian view, and that was preventing very much the advance of science” Christianity is in principle a ‘bimodal’ religion, as the sovereignty and independence of the ‘state’ or ‘the empire’ or the worldly things was granted also due to Jesus’ phrase ‘Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’ Of course, the church has sometimes intervened too much into society, but there was never a true theocracy in the West. The biggest influence were in the arts (the Bishop of Salzburg promoted Mozart). The belief into one God as a universal rule-giver has promoted the scientific search, of course. If everything that happens in the world is by chance of by the mood of Gods, then there is no reason to look for natural laws. The first real modern scientists appeared already in the 15th century. Most important Catholic scientists: G. Mendel, a monk, who detected the rules of inheritance. G.Lemaitre, priest, inventor of the Big Bang theory. P.T. de Chardin, Society of Jesus, ethnologist, paleontologist, philosopher. Kepler and Newton were also believers. The case with Galilei is not so straightforward as most people think. The vaticans operates a observatory and helds an academy of sciences, where contemporary issues are discussed with top scientists.

    2. Your problem lies in your education which was designed to say what you say now. Why India can’t be a Hindu Rashtra when she was divided based on religion? Majority Muslims and 100% Christians can’t claim any role in freedom fight, Christians were with the Brits completely and never wanted freedom from them. Constitution was baptised as Secular later by the so called liberals and leftists with the help of our history’s biggest blunder Jawaharlal Nehru. The present day secularism is appeasing minorities by rejecting the majority Hindu’s rights and not acceptable.

    3. vidyanand · · Reply

      Indian was always a plural society,. founding father never wanted the word Secular.. it was inserted by Indira Gandhi… secular word is fit to western countries where church was major influence.. in India religious leaders were always helped to reform society..

    4. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      Bullshit. U seem to be a Mulla undercover with Hindu name. It has to be a Hindu nation. There is every chance that you are a Soul prostitute.

  3. The Constitution says that India will be secular. The word ‘secular’ was added later, but the ethos of secularism was embedded in the beginning itself. So to argue for a Hindu nation is to argue that Constitution of India be changed. It may be worthwhile to know why the architects of the Constitution did not make India a Hindu nation. The India (or Bharat) that we now talk about was born in 1947, and its Constitution came into effect in 1950. The India before that comprised of present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. I would call this as greater-India or akhand Bharat. But this akhand Bharat did not include states that are there in the North East and are now part of India. The Jaintias, Khasis, Mizos, Nagas et al. who are inhabitants of the North Eastern states were never part of akhand Bharat and they were never ever Hindus — whether one denotes ‘Hindu’ in territorial sense or in religious sense. Ancient Indian kings never ventured into this region. They were dragged into India by the British. So when India got independence in 1947, with such diverse history, it was a fragile state. If the architects of the Constitution had made India a Hindu state, many regions would violently break away from India in 1947 itself. So if one knows the history and diversity of India, to argue for a Hindu state is to call for the break-up of India.
    Yes, Christianity is an exclusivist religion ( if by religion we mean the belief, practice etc.) because there is explicit belief that Jesus is the only one Lord and God. This exclusivist belief became the basis for people of other religion to be tortured and persecuted in Christendom. Anyone who has read European history would know about this. It took over 1500 years for Christians to come with an idea that religious exclusivism cannot entail political exclusivism. To put it differently, though Christianity is exclusivist, in nations where Christians are majority, politically it has to be inclusive. Today no Christianised nations or a Christian would call people who are not Christians to be burnt at stake or be stoned to death. There is virtually no Christian theocratic state today. Today Muslims are grappling with this issue. Whether Islam will evolve like Christianity did or not is something we would have to wait and see. With present day technology that makes the world smaller, Islam will have to evolve this way or that way, or it may self destruct. After all people want more democratic space all over.
    If you look at Nepal, until very recently it was a Hindu theocratic state. One may ask: If Hinduism is inclusive, how come it had a political institution that did not allow freedom of religion to the citizens? My point is that a religion that is exclusivist or inclusive does not necessarily imply that adherents of that religion will necessarily have a political institution that reflects the character of the religion. Transition from religion towards constructing a political philosophy/theory takes effort to negotiate here and there.
    As a practising Christian, I would want Christianity dominated states to continue to give freedom of religion to the citizens. Similarly, I would argue that Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism dominated states should continue to give freedom of religion to the citizens. This call for Hindu nation, Christian nation, Islamic nation etc. should not be made. Why must we call for a state where people who follow a religion different from that of the majority be sent to jail or discriminated against?
    If you think that being a Hindu is good for you, and you are convinced that it will be good for others then spread the word. Put it bluntly: convert others to your belief. Freedom of religion will mean freedom to share your religious belief to others, which in turn implies that others are also free to share their beliefs to you particularly if you are willing to listen. What is wrong is to force people to believe what I believe, whether this coercion comes through the religious institution or through the state.

    1. Dear Jeremiah A.V. Duoma The constitution did not have the word Secular as you have rightly pointed out it was inserted later on during Mrs.Indira Gandhi regime. We are predominantly Hindu country if UK USA can proclaim they are a christian country rightfully so we Indians can also say we are a Hindu Nation kindly note that except India & Nepal where Hindus are majority we as Hindus are a Minority in this world.

      So all this secular talk is just for the sake of votes the politicians indulge in and also because missionaries sponsor many and they are duty bound to support and talk about secularism and Hindu Fundamentalist. India is a land of Great Rishisis it is this which protects our sacred land from all this attack from various overseas religious fundamentalist who want to propagate and cover India into their fold

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        KN Ramesh, US/UK as Christian nation. Since when? If you read political history to find out why separation of religion and state came to be maintained in European states, you will learn that it was because of bloody battle between different religious factions. Today if you want to turn India into Hindu state, it will lead to bloodshed. Please get out of your town and see and read about other parts of India as well. India is a Hindu dominated nation, but since ancient times till now, as I stated above, my ancestors have never even Hindus. And, before India got independence my ancestors have became Christians, but that’s a different story.

        All this secular talk could be for votes, but all this Hindu nation could also be for votes. But the reason why secular ethos was woven into the Constitution in the beginning was in order to keep India together while acknowledging its diversity. To strip of such political values and convert India into a Hindu state is to take India into 10th century Europe.

        You mention of overseas religious fundamentalist. But what would you say of emperor Ashoka sending out hundreds of Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia etc. to convert them to Buddhism? Do you think he was an overseas religious fundamentalist to these nations? In my view, “freedom of religion/conscience” implies that anyone is free to propagate his or her religion/philosophy/culture/ideology within the bound of fair speech i.e without using lies, insult etc. so that people of other religion/philosophy/culture/ideology may change. If whatever you belief and say is right and whatever I say and believe is right, then conversation has no meaning.

    2. Your History lessons are given to you by the missionaries who had only one aim to convert you. I ‘m not here to teach you your own history read it from someone other than your stupid missionaries and pastors first.

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        Which bit of history are you referring to? About the North East? If so, I would rather say that as one from the North East I know more of North East and its history than most Indians.

      2. It is difficult for a Roman Catholic to become President of USA the only exception being JFK.Even Obama has to prove he is a true christian by flooding internet with pictures with pastor.

      3. Anything which does not conform to your beliefs become stupid! How convenient and equally lame!!!

    3. Sriram Kasthuri Vinjamoor · · Reply

      Oh Ho Ho Jeremiah… Are you in India? Muslims and Christians in particular have grown 10 times over the last two decades.. Merely by way of coercion, either by way of a favor(money, education, treatment for ailments etc) or by brainwashing and sheer force.. Please know the facts before jumping the gun.. Maria makes 100 percent sense

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        Yes, I am in India. Let me give few reasons why your accusation is just a lie. First, the Census figure of Christians in India in 1951 is 2.3%, and again in 2011, it still stands at 2.3%. Second, Use of coercion to convert people is illegal, and if there are such cases policemen could take action. There is no police report about forced conversion. Third, In India where Hindus are in sheer majority, it would be astounding for Christians to be able to use force to convert people. And in the given situation where Christians are in sheer minority, Christians have no such resources to convert people forcefully. Fourth, people do not normally convert because of force. In the past where there are kings, such things did happen. But today where people cannot put to death other person, there is no plausibility in such narrative. Fifth, Christians themselves consider forced conversion to be wrong and illegal, and therefore there is no reason why such things would be supported.

  4. Samsam · · Reply

    True ‘why not a Hindu nation’. But no, our Constitution says otherwise, by which we live in this beautiful country. To uphold the constitution and defend its ‘true values’ is our duty. Your sympathetic view of an un-secular India is pathetic. That secularism, Hopefully, will resurface in the mainstream media like you mentioned, that the Vedic religion in inclusive which is ‘becoming’ the other.

  5. […] blog piece by Maria Wirth – a German settled in India – called ‘Are Christian and Muslim Nations OK and Hindu Nations Not?‘, Originally published on 21 April 2017 in Wirth’s personal blog, the piece gained […]

  6. Absolutely fantastic article.
    God is within us and when we abuse others, we abuse the same God within them.
    God also does not need our help and intervention to help others love him or understand him. As long as we appreciate this, we don’t need to use religion as a tool to destroy other human beings.
    Most importantly, the true essence of Sanathana Dharma is that parmarthika [or understanding GOD] is different from lokarthika [worldly purposes]. Religion is lokarthika and a way of life. It has got so little to do with GOD,

    1. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      You can’t convince people with ignorance.

    2. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      Well summarized. Perhaps others cannot understand or digest what you have summarized. How can one expect to understand the article by @mariawirth1. Difficult.

  7. Rajesh · · Reply

    Namaste Maria, indeed a beautiful article. Wonderful in-depth assessment. A must read for all . God bless you

  8. A Deshpande · · Reply

    Superb, ultimate truth.
    Politicians would never allow scrapping of personal laws for selfish political gains motivated by the west and vested interests.

  9. Love to read the article by Shradheya Bahan Ji. Hinduism is an inclusive religion based on Truth and Dharma. The righteous is the word here to be read at the place of the Dharma. We do not use religion and dharma vice versa pl.

    Let me make very clear that out of Hundred births to Human bening only one happens to the Bharat Bhumi,PunyaBhumi,MatruBhumi,HinduBhumi The purest one. Its our old Karma due to that we are born here as human being. Our job is “Wayam Rashtre Jagruyam Purohitah” , and one who is not following this dharma is not Brahman.

    So let me assure we are changing , our country is changing , There was no need to change name of BharatVarsha/Hindustan as India after independence , it was to just to include Bapu and Chacha to this generation of people without any solid reason by the English .

    BharatMata is etrnal to this PunyaBhumi. We worship this land to our mother. We were never against any faith whatever you say it like Islam,Christianity,jews etc since time immortal. we feel and appreciate that the Char, Achar being of whole world are from Brahman. The Sat Chit Anand is granted by virue of him only. We are always with truth and reformation and discovery is part of the hinduism which is often brought in side by our great Sages,Gurus and the great people of the Kaliyuga.

    Bharat Mata Ki Jay!!!

  10. Pankaj · · Reply

    Superb Logical and true thoughts . Thanks for sharing your views Maria.

  11. Absolutely wonderful article Maria Wirth, you are more an Indian than a German to us, true to veda teachings of who we are. Jay Ho.

    1. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      You know one thing, German language is evolved from Sanskrit.

  12. vidyanand · · Reply

    pleasing to read this article.. its because of Hindus that this nation is Plural.. otherwise we can see how churches were influential in west and how sharia is applied in all islamic countries

  13. No indian rishi ever talked about earth orbiting sun. Yes Aryabhat did suggest that earth revolved on its axis and was round. He even measured the earth’s circumference. He explained the phenomena of eclipses and debunked Hindu myths that thrive even today. He was persecuted by brahmins and many of his manuscripts burnt down. Besides rests on a heirarchical caste system which confers privileges on a small percentage of socalled upper caste condemning the majority as shudra and untouchables who are destined do serve the upper castes… Hinduism is one of the brutal within and hence Hindu could never fight invading armies.

  14. SVARGH · · Reply

    The problem is not about India being called a Hindu nation or a secular or by any other name. The problem is the attitude of leaders of this movement who want to make India a Hindu nation.

    You can check out what the leaders – Yogi Adityanath, Praveen Togadia, Sadhvi Prachi – and the like said. You can say these are fringe elements but then if you want to call the CM of the most populous state, a member of parliament, the head of a Sangh Parivar organizaton as fringe elements, pray tell me who are the mainstream.

  15. Great article. I always found Buddhism and Hinduism influential on Asia and the world. Both, especially Buddhism, have syncretic approaches to religion outside of India.

    The liberal bias towards Muslims is because there are a lot of peaceful Muslims in the West, and the fear of Islamphobia. In a certain degree, we do have Islamphobes. However, the criticism of certain forms of Islam is completely valid. But liberals will get mad and use “Islamphobia” to justify shutting down any valid debates on the subject. They also tie such things to racism. While India itself has never completely recovered from the decimation of the Muslims on the culture for a thousand years, and then 200 years of Brit rule.

    Most of this is ignorance, as they do not see that a good chunk of Hindus practice ahimsa. I am not scared of a Hindu state so much, because India is home to some major religions in the world and they are pretty tolerant. However, I would prefer India be secular.

    I find “Hinduism” to be an umbrella term for the original indigenous religions of the area that have similar beliefs and practices, especially in gods. I find the term similar to the term “pagan” that it encompasses many practices/religions.

  16. […] blog piece by Maria Wirth – a German settled in India – called ‘Are Christian and Muslim Nations OK and Hindu Nations Not?‘, Originally published on 21 April 2017 in Wirth’s personal blog, the piece gained […]

  17. Viraj · · Reply

    Dear Ms.Wirth,

    I do not know about the issue raised by you and as always you have been very forthright.

    I have noticed in Germany,Switzerland and Austria that women date more Arabs and Turks.Never seen any Indian with them.A personal issue no doubt but western girls are not bothered about conversions at all.They don’t mind their children converted to Islam from birth even if they don’t convert themselves.Your thoughts on this will be very enlightening.Regards,

    No doubt these ethnic people are handsome but are looks that important to the western girls?I am sure they are not frivolous enough to fall for money.

  18. […] article was originally published on Maria Wirth Blog. Please visit author’s blog for more such […]

  19. Dear Maria,
    Thank you. Born in Germany but having lived most of my life in other countries between UK and India, I made similar observations.

    In view of the bigger picture, I’d say that it is no secret that mainstream media tends to pick the negative aspects of a subject (‘only bad news are good news’) and generally never promotes any life perspectives, teachings, tools and insights that are truly self-empowering and liberating. And why would they? To keep the masses uninformed, small and in modern slavery is most convenient for certain people.

    It comes as no surprise that India’s spiritual science and India’s potency are denied, suppressed and even ridiculed. India’s rich culture simply states a threat to Western lifestyle which is infiltrated by fear and greed. The Western mindframe is linear, rational and focused on consumerism and external achievements. And it is most unfortunate, that the East began copying the West.

    But whether East, Middle East or West, it is high time to remember that we are inherently multidimensional, spiritual beings and begin to view life and influences around us accordingly. This implies to go beyond one personified god and see oneness in all, go beyond our fivesense perception and train our inner antennae for higher sense perception (HSP) like intuition, third eye cognition, inner knowing and self awareness of our own energy fields and soul signatures. In short: go within and connect to Source directly. Without any mediators – neither religions nor gurus.

    The majority of the so called spiritual leaders in religious communities or sanghas are manipulative narcissists anyway. They have an undercover agenda (power, control, wealth accumulation) and siphon – overtly or subliminally, consciously or unconsciously – lifeforce and resources from their ‘targets’. From naiv budding seekers as well as mesmerised, mind-controlled followers and admirers. All in the name of some noble cause.

    It is high time for each individual to wake up and self-responsibly release destructive dependencies, limiting imprints and dysfunctional conditionings that were picked up since birth and during the formative years of childhood – ancestral beliefs as well as collective behaviour- and value-patterns. There is a lot to do for each single one of us.

    May maximum discernment, tenacity, light, love and peace be with us.

    By the way, another German who lives abroad and does excellent work:

  20. Dear Maria
    Thanks for this thought provoking article what we need is a Govt which can say India is a Hindu Nation we do not have to worry about any body in this matter as usual the secular minds in this country will scream shout which will make one deaf let them do what they know best because it they who encourage all this conversion by missionaries turning a blind eye to all that is happening around us and most of them hide behind their alias names because they do not want others to know they are Christians.

  21. i agree with some of your points. But I don’t agree that the media is against a hindu nation. I would say that at this point it is more plausible and Hinduism is getting more attention through the media because it has harmony with judaism. Please read my blog , I have explained this in detail.

  22. Dear Jeremiah A.V. Duoma Good Day your response above Quote “, it would be astounding for Christians to be able to use force to convert people. And in the given situation where Christians are in sheer minority, Christians have no such resources to convert people forcefully” Unquote this is not true the fact is missionaries from abroad send money via NGO this is used for converting kindly see Rajiv Malhotra video on YouTube where he has proved that conversion are taking place in India. Then you census theory Hindus are in Majority is right yes because we are a Hindu nation and only one other than Nepal in this world is a Hindu nation but we are a minority in this world dominated by Christians and Muslims which is a fact. India is a fertile place for conversion because of poverty. Christianity says if you do not believe in Christ you will go to hell this is again forced belief You will never find a atheist in Christianity because an atheist will be shunned by Christians whereas Hinduism accepts atheist for what they are Hinduism never says if you don’t believe in our god you will go to hell

    1. Jeremiah Duomai · · Reply

      I do not deny that Christians try to convert people into Christianity; I just deny that there is forceful conversion today.

      Yes, one cannot be an atheist and be a Christian… because Christians’ belief is that there is a God that exists, and so those who say that God does not exist is wrong. You say that one can be an atheist or a theist and be a Hindu. Of course, that’s a big difference between Christianity and Hinduism.

      1. Read the book “ Breaking India “ by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravind Neelakandan. This will open your eyes if you’re willing to let them open. If you choose to deliberately shut your eyes on the conversion agenda of the Christians, you are as bad as the missionaries who always prey on the poor and the vulnerable. Your statistics on the percentage of Christian population in India needs to be taken with a bucket load of salt. You very well know that a lot of converted Dalit Hindus still state their religion as Hindu to get all the benefits, all at the instigation of the church. Your religion exudes exclusivism and history centric and non believers go to hell . Period. The joke you have a “ judgment day”!! Even humans are encouraged to be non judgmental but apparently this doesn’t apply to your MALE ANGRY GOD AND HIS ONLY SON😡. God is supposed to be infallible but being judgemental, the God of Christianity falls flat on his male face. Piece of advice. Don’t try to defend the indefensible, that’s Christianity .

  23. That’s really great and in-depth analysis of hinduism. Hinduism is a victim of pseudo Secularism since infinity. However the theocratic state concept will not appeal to hindus themselves

  24. Somebody has replied at ‘Eleventh Column’ to this article of Wirth. I have posted my comment there as follows:
    Your piece of response to Maria Wirth’s article on ‘why objection to Hindu nation, if you do not object to Christian nation’ theme though looks like full of scholarly wisdom but in essence is without any substance. You cite NYT articles to say that liberal media there too is against ‘Christian nation’ idea. In your eagerness to refute Wirth’s thesis, you cite ‘Caste discrimination’ of Hinduism. It is a ‘Brahm Ashtra’ to attack Hinduism not only by you alone; the entire West utilizes it, though for conversion purpose. Dear friend, come to the reality and don’t play with words to show wisdom. US is a Christian nation; even the president takes oath there on Bible; most of educational institutions are funded and controlled by Church; in Germany, State funds Church. This much the worth of NYT pieces. Yes, US etc. tolerates Hindu people – unlike Islam – but the hate and defame Hinduism in the name of Caste evil etc; they oppose Hindu things – like Yoga – if possible; if not claim as invented by them. Your this piece is highly superficial with a color of depth.Yes, Caste as it is practised today – inherited by birth – is an evil but all good things degenerate with the passage of time and need adaptation and improvement to suit the changed time. You read all blogs of Wirth, she is much deep and wiser than you. And one thing more: if you have time and aptitude to discuss serious subjects, then read some material of your liking here:

  25. Great reply.

    The caste system is best explained in God Talks To Arjuna by Yogananda.This was all about Sandhya Bhasha which is not taught at any university.It
    s found in Bible and especially the Book Of Revelation.The concept of caste was misused by selfish people.Even today,not Brahmins but Kshatriyas( Thakoors) seem to be tormenting people.Nobody has any courage to denigrate nay other religion except Hinduism.I wonder why that is.All were ,ultimately,interpreted based on “revelations as claimed” by humans.All have flaws.Dr.Farookh Abdulla has gone on record claiming( at least) that his forefathers were Saraswat Brahmins.Many Christian patients of mine have proudly claimed the same .

  26. Great article. Highly objective and written with an open,unbiased mind

    1. Hans Grob · · Reply

      ” Highly objective and written with an open,unbiased mind”

      Improbable. Social, cultural, religious opinions must be considerably unobjective. Most people tend to ascribe an opinion as objective, good and correct, if it complies with their own ideas.

      Maria as a convert is clearly in complete opposition to Christianity. Converts are mostly the most fundamentalist. We can observe that in Europe with converts to Islam.

      1. If you read slowly through the article, you will realize that Hindu Dharma is not a religion based on blind belief. It is not an opinion, but can be verified in own experience. Intellect alone won’t do. One needs to follow certain rules, like Satya vada Dharam Chara.
        Speak the truth, do what is right

      2. What is “fundamentalism “ about Hinduism please? How can a religion which is pluralistic by its very nature and which has no dogmas and which even has atheism as one of the Dhashana ( view) can be “ fundamental????? Christianity and Islam can be fundamental but Hinduism CANNOT BE FUNDAMENTAL. Period!

      3. Hans Grob · ·

        I wrote: ‘Converts are mostly the most fundamentalist’. You cited: ‘What is “fundamentalism “ about Hinduism please?’ I considered persons, not religions. One sign of fundamentalism is the depreciation of other religions, and so does Maria fiercely and completely. In politics, this mindset is called ideology, mostly the one praising socialism/communism.

  27. The fact is India ruled by Moguls for 800 years and Christians for 200 years so many temples destroyed in the process. Many an Hindu Kings fought the Moguls and Christians the length and breadth of India but the British never acknowledge this and their history book is full of distortion glorifying Moguls and Christians this has to be looked into and these books have to taken of the educational system hence many of us or ignorant of true facts.

    During this period many Hindus were forced to convert or they were killed such was the atmosphere prevailing in this Hindu Land but in spite of .all this we continue be 80% Hindu nation. Most of our temples are controlled by the Govt and all the income from this goes to the Govt but none of Mosques or Churches are in Govt Control and muslims going of Ha pilgrimage get subsidy from the Govt the tax payer bears all this.

  28. Saraswati · · Reply

    Wonderful Article..
    Great to know that Maria has such a deep and clear understanding of Hindus and Hinduism..

  29. Hans Grob · · Reply

    “Are Christian and Muslim nations YES … ” Another critique, a semantique one. OK is a confirming response (to a question), like YES. So I substituted OK by YES to show that this sentence is semantically nonsense.

    The same, as written already, in the philosophical realm. Most Western nations are at the same time Christian nations and not. The history, the customs weigh heavy, but they are not theocracies.

    In Bosnia and Herzegovina, former part of Yougoslavia, Europe, West, the Bosniaks are by majority Muslims. Hence is it a Muslim state?

    The traditional philosophy/religion of China is Confucianism. Currently, the Communist party is ruling. Is China therefore a Confucianist Communist state? (P.S.: Christians in the underground).

    1. What it is a nonsense is that minorities rule a country by the means of giving them priority in the laws, or having different laws to apply depending whether the person belongs to a religion or to another, instead of applying uniform laws for all and priority for the ones that really need it, disregarding his or her religion. Happening in India.

      What it is a nonsense is for instance that the a nation whose heart is fully Hindu whether they like it or not, has to suffer in its own heart the stabbing that for Hindu sentiments means to kill its Mother cow just for the sake of the palate of some. Happening in India.

      Example of a Catholic nation and its functioning: mine itself (Spain) when I was born and before: everybody had to be baptised and forcibly keep a Christian name, which of course amounts to everybody born in Spain counting in the figures of the Christian flock whether they were convinced or not by this religion. Add to this the conversion abroad through the Christian Missions and you will get the (injustly counted) major religion in the world by number of followers.

      Example of a Hindu nation: India in the past, when, being Hindu majority, gave shelter to different minorities without imposing them to convert to Hinduism. See Parsis, Jews persecuted everywhere else found shelter in India and could continue with their religion without being harassed and forced to convert to Hinduism. Christians and Muslims despite HAVING INVADED India in the past,
      and having shed rivers of blood among Hindus, specially Muslims who also killed Christians, have a nation of their own now, with the passage of generations, in which they can freely practice their religion (India). And still some of them dare to call the ones who gave them shelter “saffron, right-wing and communals”

      This is a main difference: Christians and Muslims seek to convert anybody else. History proves it. Hindus respect everybody else´s religion, unlike Abrahamic religions. This is the gist of what Maria is talking about, if I am not wrong.

      Now pls, feel free to correct my English. I will get an English class for free! 🙂

  30. Brilliantly stated Maria. Really well argued.

  31. Phani Kumar · · Reply

    Dear Madam, If a non Hindu reads one of your many articles on Hinduism, he would definitely introspect. If he is the one in search of truth, he will read the other articles also before going to libraries. Once he feels to go in depth he will become a satellite to libraries.

  32. Thank you sister, for understanding our problems, so called peseudo seculars are the biggest problem for this nation

  33. Ramamurthy · · Reply

    Simply beautiful and simple and logic with facts .

  34. nope.
    indo-european languages are all derived from proto-indo-european base language from which sanskrit (the progenitor to hindusthani languages arises) but proto-germanic language arises from P.I.E. also. separately but german didn’t come from sanskrit.

    Germanic- German
    / | \-Danish
    it goes P.I. E Dutch etc.
    Sanskritham – Rajasthani
    Marathi etc.

    1. i wonder what your “nope” refers to.
      Further, instead of saying, “indo-european languages are all derived from PIE”, (which looks like a fact) it would be more correct to say that there is a theory which claims this, but there are no hard and fast proofs.

      Ancient history keeps changing with every new archeological find. for example, now there is an indication that humans came over 100,000 years earlier to America than so far believed.

      we might be better off if we trust the Rishis who mentioned huge time cycles. so far the Rishis have never been proven wrong, including “the world is maya”.

    2. they are not talking about language

  35. Agree with you, thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: