New Delhi: Any discussion on the topic of the true meaning of Hindu Civilisation is unlikely to be just a tame affair. It is political, and it will involve head-butting. And it will bring panellists and audiences from the far Right to the liberal, from the curious to the critical.
That is what happened at the launch of former diplomat and MP Pavan K Varma’s new book, The Great Hindu Civilisation, at New Delhi’s India Habitat Centre.
In a heated discussion that saw participation from MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi, author and scientist Anand Ranganathan and former MP Mahesh Jethmalani, Varma highlighted the enduring quality of India’s Hindu civilisation. It survived over 5,000 years; even as other civilisations rose and fell, he said.
“Hindu sanskriti is a form of civilisation. And we sometimes ignore this period of history. We neglect it or we are not fully aware of it,” he added. “It is wrong to question the existence of this culture,” said Varma.
The Great Hindu Civilisation, a Westland Books publication, has been translated into Hindi as Mahan Hindu Sabhyata. The book, which according to Varma has received both bouquets and brickbats from “communists, liberals, and extreme Right-wingers”, asserts that a great Hindu civilisation existed and still thrives. Hinduism’s ancient roots, refinement, spirituality, and secularism make it a remarkable civilisation, he added. “In philosophy, the profundity of Hindu and Indian thought is unparalleled. Its openness, in which there is permission to ask questions and dialogue, is a strange thing.”
Varma claimed that often when he praises this historical period, he is mischaracterised as a Hindu Right-winger. He said that when he looks at modern times, he sees gaps in how the Hindu civilisation is expressed politically, hinting at issues such as manipulation of identity and divergence from core values for electoral gains. “There is a gap in this great civilisation and culture. We need to reflect on that, then I would also be against the Hindu Right,” he stressed.
The threat of Hindu openness
Principles, ethics and the changing landscape of Hinduism formed the core of the discussion around Varma’s new book.
Scientist and author Anand Ranganathan warned that Hinduism’s survival is threatened by Hindu apathy—a paradox stemming from the religion’s openness to debate, learning, and atheism. These qualities allow freedom of belief, which further enriches the faith.
“There is no foundation, structure, method or path. There are many ways to attain salvation, but there is no message. I think this is the biggest strength (of Hinduism),” he emphasised.
Ranganathan said that Hinduism began as an ordered society of people east of the Indus River, known as Sindhu, and evolved into a complex civilisation. Citing Varma’s book, which counters critics such as American Indologist and author Wendy Doniger, he affirmed that Hinduism is not just a religion but a way of life—a perspective increasingly recognised in electoral rhetoric and political discourse.
He claimed that some leaders, in displays of virtue signalling and opportunism, have prioritised giving in to rather than standing firm against the discrimination of Hindus.
He questioned MK Gandhi’s 1947 statement, where he had said that even if Muslims killed all Hindus, they (the Hindus) would be ushering in a beautiful new world by sacrificing their lives. “What does that mean? That is not ahimsa (non-violence). That is succumbing to injustice,” said Ranganathan.
He also pointed out how Jawaharlal Nehru forbade President Rajendra Prasad from consecrating the Somnath temple in 1951 due to his “fear of Hindu revivalism”.
Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi and senior lawyer Jethmalani defended Gandhi, with Singhvi emphasising that the “atom bomb of ahimsa” was key to India’s Independence despite his imperfections. Jethmalani added that Gandhi’s push for Hindu-Muslim unity and tactical statements were aimed at avoiding Partition and uniting both communities against British rule.
Singhvi criticised Ranganathan, labelling his stance as that of an “aggressive macho Hindu”. He stressed on the importance of preserving the unique aspects of Hinduism, which do not adhere to rigid dogmas centred around a single person, prophet, or book. Singhvi questioned whether conforming to such definitions, out of fear of being perceived as cowardly or weak, is justified.
Moreover, Singhvi said that “Hinduism must give way” to constitutional values. The preamble “talks about fraternity, the least recognised word of the Constitution. The much-maligned secularism comes later, then equality, and many more.”
Also read: What happened to ‘Hinduism is tolerant, secular’? Difficult question for an Indian today
‘Hindus are secular by nature’
In a sarcastic tone, Ranganathan thanked Singhvi for referring to him as macho and aggressive “seven times”. “I will give you my wife’s number if you could kindly convey that to her. That would change my life forever,” he said as the audience burst into laughter, a rare moment in an otherwise tense evening.
Ranganathan justified that questioning discrimination and injustice does not mean being macho and aggressive. “It’s being morally upright”. He then proceeded to talk about India’s most prevalent debate – majority vs minority rights.
“In which country are the majority of refugees in their own land? Do you have American refugees in America? Do you have German refugees in Germany? Why do we have Kashmiri Hindus exiled? And still refugees in their own land?” he asked as the audience looked on.
Former Rajya Sabha MP Jethmalani used examples from contemporary politics and the Constitution to respond to Ranganathan’s assertions. According to him, core constitutional values reflect the “conscious” secularism of Hinduism. “India is a secular country because Hindus are secular by nature. That is the essence of our religion. We are tolerant,” he said, emphasising that one cannot claim to be truly secular without acknowledging Articles 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution, which guarantee the rights of minorities.
The protection and recognition of minority rights, along with the assurance of their distinct way of life, are crucial components of conscious secularism, Jethmalani added.
Also read: When did large Hindu temples come into being? Not before 500 AD
New India
Jethmalani questioned the evolving concept of New India in light of “bulldozer justice,” asking whether it can truly be called ‘justice’ when it disproportionately impacts a particular community.
Raising his fingers toward the audience, he challenged them to justify instances of violence in the name of justice.
One of the cases he cited was from August, involving an elderly Muslim man who was assaulted over suspicions of carrying beef onboard a train in Nashik. It left the attendees in stunned silence.
Jethmalani warned that words create images and images create a mock mentality. He questioned the audience about the recent increase in lynchings, and whether it reflects their definition of Hinduism.
“You need to realise that if your words are aggressive, but your actions are moderate, well, somewhere they will have aggressive consequences.”
In the end, Varma grabbed the mic with the intent of lightening the mood. He highlighted a “unifying thread” that runs through the diverse aspects of Hindu civilisation.
“We are so effortlessly harmonious with the world, because, while we participate in diversity, we know in one part of our mind that there is a great [underlying] unity.”
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)