Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Imagine a football match with no ball—yet 22 players are running as if the final trophy depends on it. One team shouts, “The ball hasn’t even arrived!” The other screams, “You kicked it to our side—now you’re lying!” The referee escapes, because how do you judge a game when the key object itself is missing?
That is what many debates on Sanatan Dharma look like. Without a clear, agreed reference framework, interpretation turns into over-interpretation. WhatsApp forwards become “scripture,” half-quotations become “truth,” and cherry-picked tradition becomes “law.” Even genuine seekers feel uncertain—so imagine how easily vested interests can exploit that ambiguity.It is a living, transparent, peer-reviewed reference framework—available in print and digital form, in all major Indian languages—so people can debate honestly with the “ball on the ground.”
Has Sanatan Dharma ever clearly stated that the President of a country—the first citizen—cannot enter the sanctum of a temple?If anyone claims such a restriction exists, let them produce authentic, verifiable evidence: Which text? Which verse? Which context?
Why the urgency is now
Dr. CSR Prabhu (retired DG, National Informatics Centre; Vedic scholar; yoga authority) says : “Sanatan Dharma today is being pulled in many directions—by politics, regional voices, self-styled gurus, social media “experts,” and even sincere devotees—creating more confusion than clarity, like a football match without a clear rulebook. The core problem is the absence of a comprehensive, authoritative, widely accessible reference. In that vacuum, interpretations multiply—some sincere, some selective, some distorted—and the loudest voice often dominates.
His key reminder: Dharma is an ethical way of life for all human beings, not a ritual-only label, caste pride, or political brand.
Debates on religion, caste, temple access, social equality, and identity are intensifying as misinformation outpaces reliable scholarship. Without a unified, verified reference for Dharma, opportunistic groups may define it for others and suppress inquiry by labeling it “anti-Dharma.”
Where this conversation must happen
This is not a topic only for monasteries or university classrooms. It belongs everywhere:
- Parliament and State Assemblies (public policy and reform frameworks)
- Universities and research bodies (history, philosophy, sociology, constitutional studies)
- Temples and religious institutions (practice, community standards, ethical education)
- Media platforms—print, TV, YouTube, podcasts, social media (public awareness)
- Town-hall style public forums in every district (grassroots participation)
And crucially, it must happen in Indian languages—not only in elite English circles—so the process becomes democratic and participatory.
Who must be involved
A credible documentation process cannot be owned by one group. If one faction writes it, another faction will reject it as propaganda. The process must include:
- Traditional scholars (Vedic, Agamic, Vedantic, Bhakti, Smriti commentators)
- Modern academics (historians, sociologists, anthropologists, constitutional scholars)
- Rational and reform voices (to challenge harmful interpretations and expose misuse)
- Religious leaders with a modern outlook (to translate ethics into today’s life)
- Representatives of marginalized communities (who have faced historical exclusion)
- Youth, women, and common citizens (because Dharma is lived, not only studied)
- Government as facilitator—not theological owner (as a democratic convenor)
Only a multi-stakeholder approach can produce a framework that is widely trusted.
Why documentation matters
Unwritten—or unstructured—systems are easy to abuse. When there is no shared verified reference, people can:
- preach convenient versions to control followers,
- justify discrimination as “tradition,”
- weaponize scripture fragments without context,
- and silence dissent by portraying questions as insults to Dharma.
What “documentation” should mean
This should not become a new tool of control. It should be designed to protect Dharma’s ethical core while acknowledging diversity.
1) A certified core + open scholarly layers
- Core ethical principles: ahimsa, satya, compassion, dignity, self-restraint, service, responsibility
- Primary source excerpts with context (Sanskrit + translations)
- Multiple interpretations clearly labeled (Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Bhakti, etc.)
- Disputed passages flagged with scholarly notes so misuse becomes difficult
2) Dual format: physical + digital
- Printed volumes for credibility, permanence, libraries
- Digital platform for searchability, multilingual access, transparent updates, version control
3) Safeguards against misuse
- Peer review + public review cycles
- Named editorial board with rotating membership
- Public change-log (what changed, why, and who approved it)
- Clear separation of timeless principles vs historical practices
(So nobody sells oppression as spirituality.)
The government’s role
Government should not “define Dharma.” But it can responsibly facilitate:
- structured national and state-level dialogues,
- representation and fairness,
- funding for translation and public-access publishing,
- platforms for consensus-building.
If people participate widely, the outcome gains legitimacy. If it remains elite or one-sided, it will fail.
The bottom line
Without clear documentation, Sanatan Dharma is interpreted in various ways, leading to societal disputes. Meanwhile, countries like China emphasise progress in research and development, while India often focuses on identity conflicts such as tradition versus modernity or caste versus equality.
A transparent living documentation framework may not resolve every dispute, but it can limit manipulation and promote clarity, helping the country shift focus toward ethical conduct, social cohesion, and progress.
First, bring the ball to the ground. Then we can talk about the goal.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.