Vijayendra Mohanty

Going through many discussions on matters that pertain to Hindu culture, one finds that there are two distinct sets of opinions on the matter of what Hinduism is.

There is one school of thought that seeks to ban anything it perceives as un-Hindu or as being “against Indian culture”. The group opposed to this line of thought speaks of the universalist nature of Hinduism. It speaks of the accepting Hindu, the spiritual Hindu, the universalist Hindu. It says that people who say something is un-Hindu, are actually un-Hindu themselves because Hinduism accepts all ways of thought.

Hinduism is not amorphous. It is large and has no visible limits, but what gives it shape is its core, which is pluralism. Modern India has inherited this very same pluralism from its Hindu heritage.

People who castigate others for objecting to something from the Hindu point of view, often take the moral high ground and say that because Hinduism is all-accepting, any kind of ideological opposition is un-Hindu. They say that because Hinduism is accepting and assimilating, it must accept unquestioningly everything that is thrown at her. This is not valid line of reasoning.

Indiscriminate acceptance can make any organism unhealthy. This is equally true in the case of cultures — cultures survive on values. Hinduism is what it is because it is based on a particular set of values.

One of these values is openness. But openness does not mean swallowing ideas whole without at least considering them. When a new idea comes in, it must be debated, it's pros and cons measured, and a place for it must be found in the vast spaces inside Hinduism. The fact that some people's calls to debate are taken to mean that they are intolerant is rather unfortunate. No idea should be too sacred, no person too important.

Calls for debate are not censorship. In fact, it is the exact opposite of censorship. It is not about silencing voices. It is about expanding the dialogue and strengthening the foundations of a modern society.