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?

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 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 civilization 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. Are you a practicing good Christian ? Does a good’ Christians feel obligated to make everyone believe what he believes, if necessary by deceit or force? If yes then he or she can’t be called a good Christian. Maybe you wouldn’t know since you were never a good Christian. Were crusades led to speard the Christian dharma ? Where did you get the information that Vedic philosophy inspired the new scientific discoveries for example in nuclear physics? Does NASA use sanskrit ? A blog with many factual errors and fantasy by a person with limited knowledge. The good Hindu is a like a good Christian who respects and loves other human beings to but a bigot be it from any Dharam is a pain.

    1. This is posted on behalf of Maria Lozano in reply to Thomas:

      A good Christian should believe in Jesus as the ONLY SAVIOUR and the ONLY TRUE. Given Jesus is the only true, all the non-Christians are mistaken and it is his duty to contribute to take them out of their error. Be it through missions, or through sheer interaction, the Gospel HAS TO be spread, as this is a core command in the Bible and taken as such by the different Christian denominations. Am I wrong in any of these affirmations?

      It is well known that Quantum Physics for instance are inspired on Vedas. The scientists themselves acknowledged that they had had a good immersion in Vedic Darshana before arriving at their theories. And further these theories are proven to have reached in their development similar conclusions as the Upanishads had revealed long, long back.

      A world of mutual respect is an ideal that is not given, as both the Abrahamic religions have the duty to spread their “only truth” and to convert all of the rest of the population. A laymen who is a Christian for instance may not be doing attempts to convert others in his/her daily life. And there is no problem as long as we have that mutual respect. The problem lies in the duty of the Abrahamic religions to conquer the world by sword and deceive if required as they have done throughout the History.

      And last but not least, a Indian who is not Hindu has to acknowledge that his/her forefathers were, and has to respect his or her Motherland as the land of Hinduism, as we the rest of the Hindus around the world respect Bharath Mata. An Indian who is not Hindu it is obliged to know and acknowledge that s/he might be whatever he wants by the latest tradition of their family, but that his being a Christian comes from CONQUEST AND DISRESPECT of the faith of his/her forefathers. As Christians arrive India not to live in Harmony with Hindus, but TO CONVERT THEM. As it continues to do and will do as long as it exists. A Christian or Muslim Indian should realised that his ancestors where removed from their natural living in sync with the Rtam of nature to the brainwashing of a set of tenets that cannot be proven by dismissing their own Gods and lifestyle. And s/he should realise that only under the Hindu umbrella his converted ancestors could reach up to now as Christians.

  2. Garg Acharya · · Reply

    Dear Maria,
    Thankyou for wonderfully explained the way if Sanatan Dharma. Thankyou. God bless you.

  3. Sandip Kondiram Bhange · · Reply

    Thank you!

  4. A R Mishra · · Reply

    Even though she skims the surface, not an in-depth persuasion, but she makes legitimate arguments. While accepting her arguments as legit I wouldn’t support the idea of a Hindu Rashtra as it’s too frivolous. The world is undergoing a period of churn. For the end result to happen, the world needs guidance of Indianism which is embedded in Hindu way of life.

  5. Sunil Aggarwal · · Reply

    Wow, I wonder why others don’t have the same level of intellect. Very well written.


  6. Sajan Gupta · · Reply

    The Hindu religion is based on the the theory/ philosphy detailed by the Sages in the Vedas, Puranas, Upnishads etc. ,besudes the mythological figures like Rama, Krishna etc . , where as all other religions are based on.mythology only. Mohammed said this or Isa said this, but they donot have any philosiphical base. Rama or Krishna did explain the religion but with the basic principles explained in the religious books, like Vedas, Upnishads etc..
    This does not mean in any manner tgat Hindu religion is better. All religions are equal as are all humans.

    1. I think your last 2 sentences make no sense. We need to judge what is better. The other 2big religions claim they alone are true without any proof whatsoever and thereby divide humanity into right and wrong, us versus them. Hindu Dharma is all-encompassing.

  7. Completely agree with your description of Hinduism and what an “ideal” Hindu nation would look like. But unfortunately the whole “Hindutva” brigade has reduced it to an extreme intolerant and exclusive ideology which is the sad truth of the present BJP regime under Modi. I am a minority (a Parsi Zoroastrian) in India and have never felt like one up until now. We are proud of the secular fabric of this country and that cannot and should not be threatened. For example why is cow slaughter and beef consumption banned? If Hinduism is so inclusive, why forcefully dictate to people what they can or cannot eat? My dear lady, not sure if you live in India or are an observer from without, but it’s these handful of people in power with their extremist.thoughts and ideologies which is giving this peaceful religion/way of life called Hinduism a bad name. And this intolerant attitude has percolated down to the grassroots where the common man on the street is emboldened into taking law into his own hands if he feels that anything goes against his “Hindu” thought. That’s why a Hindu Rashtra is not looked upon kindly in today’s India.

    1. Sudarshan · · Reply

      Indian law contains many aspects of Hindu dharma, this is to be expected and is only natural as India has been the country of Hindu’s for so long.

      Hindu dharma also roughly translates to law, so there can be no separation of law and religion, otherwise hindu dharma is just an act as people would likely only follow it whenever it suits them.

      Secularism is a western invention, it has never been part of India before westerners invaded and neither should it be.

      “For example why is cow slaughter and beef consumption banned?”

      Read the veda’s or do a simple google search and you’ll find plenty of articles where this is explained. Cows have a special status for various reasons and are protected from harm.

      “but it’s these handful of people in power with their extremist.thoughts and ideologies which is giving this peaceful religion/way of life called Hinduism a bad name.”

      No, allowing cows to be killed and eaten on hindu land is what would give Hinduism a bad name. Allowing slaughterhouses where violence against animals is the norm is what I would call extremist, not hindu’s punishing those that violate the law.

      “And this intolerant attitude has percolated down to the grassroots where the common man on the street is emboldened into taking law into his own hands if he feels that anything goes against his “Hindu” thought. That’s why a Hindu Rashtra is not looked upon kindly in today’s India.”

      Hindu dharma does not teach us to be peaceful, inclusive and tolerant at all times, these are western liberal philosophies, not Hindu. You don’t think the weapons held by Hindu gods are just for show? In Hinduism there is ahimsa (non violence) and himsa (violence) and both are to be applied depending on the circumstance.

      Bhagavad Gita, which is one of the most important Hindu scriptures, was taught on the battlefield. It is a perfect example of himsa according to Hindu dharma. There is no question of non-violence when dealing with adharma (anti-dharma) adherents, anyone who has read and understood the scriptures would understand that.

      If you want to kill and eat cows, go to a country where such anti-dharma practices are allowed. In the current kali yuga (era of darkness) that means the whole rest of the world, so you have more than plenty of places to choose.

      India has always been Hindu land with Hindu laws and you should respect them or relocate to a country that fits your non-Hindu lifestyle better.

      1. Hans Grob · ·

        “Secularism is a western invention, it has never been part of India before westerners invaded and neither should it be.”

        It seems only so, because most new developpments came/come from the West. There have certainly been other civilisations which were on the right side of the spectrum theocracy – atheistic/secular state. I think it is best to combine the two aspects: respect the tradition of the main founding religion(s), but don’t get locked into it and don’t make problems, because today the world is open.

        “Cows have a special status for various reasons and are protected from harm.”

        I think it is Jared Diamond who has explained why cows got sacred in India. A profane reason, like for ‘halal’ precepts and proscriptions introduced first in Jewism and then abolished by Christianity and later reintroduced by Islam.

        I hear regularly about harmed, neglected, tortured cows and other animals in India. This week the Swiss TV reported about a lady (Esther Geisser) who takes care there:

        The best known example with Ingrid Newkirk:

        Let’s think rationally about the difference concernning life and death of the human being vs. the animal:

        – the human thinks abouth his future, about death; he might want to see his grandchildren grow up
        – the animal lives moment by moment, day by day, is not concerned about the future

        Hence death has a different meaning, and putting an end to life is much easier with animals.

        In case of sufferings, the human can imagine its end and accept that period. He even accepts a painful treatment like surgery. Sometimes, the suffering is so high that he commits suicide.

        Think about the fact that Switzerland is amongst the few most human countries in the world and it
        permits nearly solely human euthanasia. Which leads to a ‘death tourism’ from more strict countries.

        The animal cannot relativate sufferings, it seems endless and it can hardly commit suicide.

        Hence we should apply euthanasia on animals including cows if deemed appropriate.

        Now: slaughtering. Nowadays (in fact in the West since about 1850) it is more or less painless possible. Switzerland again led the pack by forbidding ritual slaughtering already in the 1893:

        To sum up: I think it is better to let a cow or any other animal (I see no difference) have a good life and care about it, but to put an immediate end to its life once there is a reason.

        We should rather ask always: What is human, what is mercyful (in the view of modern society and technology), and ignore the religious rules if contradicting.

        I don’t advocate eating meat, even less to form big farms for that sole purpose.

        P.S. Research is nearing the possibility to grow artificial meat. Will Hindous be allowed
        to eat such meat which genetically/physilogically identical to cow meat, and will Muslims consider its as halal?

      2. Secularism is indeed a Western invention, a response to a Western problem only. It is alien to the Hindu society and it doesn´t fit in there. One needs to understand that being a Hindu involves all aspects of life, from governing or expecting governance in a certain (Dharmic) way, to daily life of an anonymous Hindu. A separation between state and religion or rather Dharma is impossible and it becomes an artificial foreign viewpoint that was useful only in the West.

        All your viewpoint responds to that of a westerner`´s or westernised thinking aiming a western society, but doesn´t comply at all with the Hindu ethos. To understand a culture one needs to dive deep in it, put their own glasses and then some ideas will get clarified.

        Your comment regarding animals for instance fully responds to a human-centered western thought, no matter how humane it is. Which is not at all the Hindu one. I think it is just the opposite: we should observe the behaviour of the animals and learn many things from them. For Hindus, animals form a part of the whole world family, a especially vulnerable part of our family that should be protected. This is the “human point of view” of the Hindus regarding animals, and especially the cow as a Mother, further and deeper than the western interpretations, for reasons that have been explained by the Hindu tradition itself, and that should be much more heard when we are talking of their own regard of the cow.
        And the more spiritual or religious one is that the same One that permeates everything it is present everywhere including of course animals and even a blade of grass.

        And sorry but considering euthanasia the result of “one of the few most human countries” would be, at the least, a matter of debate. “Merciful killing” would collide with the Hindu thought in many cases for reasons related to karma. And only in extreme cases could be a matter of consideration, as far as I understand it.

        “What is human, what is mercyful (in the view of modern society and technology), and ignore the religious rules if contradicting”, you say. Why the modern society and technology HAS TO be the guideline for our understanding of life? Besides, what exactly IS a modern society and technology? For a Hindu “religious rules” percolate the whole life. They are not meaningless indoctrinations, but meaningful guidelines that help to live life in a meaningful way in full sync with the cosmos. Another reason for which for a Hindu, secularism is an artificial construct. And India is a Hindu country which accepted in its lap other (some of them) alien religions. In pure justice, those are the ones who should adapt to the host, ;-), and not the other way round.

      3. Kudos to your brave and straightforward comment!

  8. Leela Krishna · · Reply

    Mam don’t worry Christian missionaries will be failure in India, we need not to tell others that Hinduism is great, they will discover it, like you discovered it. Hinduism is practised as minority religion in Russia and many people will follow it and now with sadhguru it even more spreading. I saw a channel in YouTube where all sadhguru speeches are translated into Russian language. So it indicates Hinduism is followed by some people in Russia.
    In India, a true Hindu who knows about their history can never be converted.

    1. It’s difficult for the poor to turn down money and other advantage, like schooling for kids, moreover when the missionaries are “nice” take interest in their lives, etc.
      Conversion are rampant and they brainwash them against their gods, like they brainwashed us in Europe against our gods.
      Even if they lose faith, and there is a good chance, they are likely to become atheists. And look at western society to know the damage…

  9. Dharmendra · · Reply

    Hey Maria thanks for an eye opening article… inspite of being born Hindus, it is not known to crores of Hindus & never been taught in Indian schools….

  10. Ram Shukla · · Reply

    Essence of Hinduism put straight but Hindus stand so conditioned to feel inferior that r unable to emphasize their ism like you.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: