A Civilizational Crossroads for Dharmic Faiths: Part 1- Reclaiming a Civilisational Inheritance from the Grip of Propaganda
- Srinivasa Malladi
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
A Civilizational Crossroads for Dharmic Faiths - Part 1
Civilizations do not disappear only when they are destroyed. They disappear when their inheritors begin to believe that what they have inherited was never truly theirs.
This is the crossroads at which large sections of Hindus find themselves today. The situation is no different to the remaining Dharmic traditions as well as the remaining native faiths across the world.
Across regions, languages, and communities, there has been a growing tendency to reinterpret inherited traditions as the outcome of a singular “Brahmanical design.” What was once lived as ancestry is now viewed as imposition in the modern era. What was once a proud continuity is now being dismissed as a superstition or irrational sentiment.
This shift is not incidental. It reflects the internalization of a narrative—one that has historically accompanied the dismantling of native cultures across the world.
The pattern is well known. First, a civilization is told that its past is disordered, unjust, or illegitimate. Then, its knowledge systems are fragmented or erased. Finally, its people are convinced that whatever remains of their tradition is not worth preserving—or worse, not even their own.
Once this is achieved, resistance dissolves from within.
Yet, this narrative collapses under even minimal scrutiny when applied to the Hindu civilizational landscape.
There is no historical evidence of a single point of origin, no centralized authority, no enforced uniformity that defines Hindu traditions. What exists instead is an extraordinary civilizational continuum—composed of village deities, ancestral practices, regional customs, philosophical schools, and diverse modes of worship.
This is not a system designed.This is a civilization lived.
The Bhagavad Gita articulates this plurality without contradiction:
“ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम्” (Bhagavad Gita 4.11)“In whatever way people approach Me, in that same way do I respond to them.”
This is not a call to uniformity. It is a recognition of multiplicity as intrinsic to truth.
Similarly, the Gita affirms the interconnectedness of life through mutual sustenance:
“देवान् भावयतानेन ते देवा भावयन्तु वः” (Bhagavad Gita 3.11)“Nourish the devas through your actions, and they will in turn nourish you.”
This is not merely ritual instruction—it reflects a worldview of reciprocity: between human beings, nature, ancestors, and the cosmic order.
The Smṛti tradition further reinforces this through the concept of the three debts (Ṛṇa-traya):
देव ऋण (Deva Ṛṇa) — to the forces of nature and cosmic order
पितृ ऋण (Pitṛ Ṛṇa) — to one’s ancestors
ऋषि ऋण (Ṛṣi Ṛṇa) — to the seers and knowledge traditions
These are not imposed obligations. They are acknowledgments of continuity—of the fact that no individual exists in isolation from what came before.
And yet, in the present moment, a profound misreading is taking place.
Legitimate grievances against historical social inequalities are being extended into a wholesale rejection of civilizational inheritance. Anger, where justified, is being displaced. Instead of leading to reform within the framework of inheritance, it is leading to a severance from it.
This is not correction. It is misdirection.
To reject injustice is necessary.To reject one’s own ancestry in the process is not.
The critical error lies in collapsing an internally diverse civilization into a single explanatory model. The idea that all Hindu traditions are the product of a “Brahmanical construct” assumes a level of centralization and control that simply does not align with historical reality.
This assumption itself arises from a particular lens—one shaped by traditions that are organized around singular authority, fixed doctrine, and exclusive truth claims. When such a lens is applied to a plural, decentralized, and experiential civilization, it does not illuminate—it distorts.
Diversity is reinterpreted as fragmentation.Continuity is recast as imposition.Inheritance is reframed as oppression.
The result is predictable.
Communities begin to dissociate from their own practices—not because they fully understand them, but because they have come to believe that those practices do not belong to them. In doing so, they gradually relinquish what is uniquely theirs: a civilizational inheritance shaped by their own ancestors, languages, landscapes, and lived experiences.
This creates a vacuum.
And history shows that vacuums do not remain empty. They are filled—often by more rigid, homogenizing frameworks that offer certainty at the cost of plurality.
In this process, the ultimate irony unfolds:Those who abandon their inheritance in the name of liberation may find themselves absorbed into systems that permit far less freedom of thought, practice, and interpretation than what they left behind.
Meanwhile, any attempt to rediscover, articulate, or reaffirm this civilizational continuity is dismissed as “propaganda.” The narrative thus becomes self-reinforcing:To forget is progress.To remember is regression.
This inversion must be confronted.
The question before Hindus today is not abstract. It is immediate and civilizational:
Will they view themselves as disconnected individuals, inheriting a burden to be discarded?Or as rightful descendants of a vast, plural, and living tradition that is theirs to understand, refine, and carry forward?
The answer cannot be outsourced to inherited narratives.
It requires independent reflection.
To examine one’s past without imposed frameworks.To distinguish between social critique and civilizational erasure.To recognize that what has been inherited is not a monolithic construct, but a deeply rooted and diverse continuum of knowledge and practice.
The Gita’s call is not toward abandonment, but toward clarity and discernment:
“व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिर् एकेह कुरुनन्दन” (Bhagavad Gita 2.41)“In this path, the intellect must be resolute and clear.”
Clarity—not confusion—must guide engagement with one’s inheritance.
The time, therefore, is not for passive acceptance of prevailing narratives, nor for reactionary rejection of tradition. It is for conscious reclamation.
Not uncritical revival,but informed recognition.
Not imposed identity,but rightful ownership.
To walk away from one’s inheritance without understanding it is to concede the narrative.To engage with it, question it, and stand within it consciously is to reclaim it.
This is not propaganda.This is civilizational self-awareness.
And without it, no civilization—however ancient—can endure.
By Hindumitra Dr. Malladi Srinivasa Sastry
Comments