The question of whether Hindus are “awakening from their slumber” has become a recurring theme in public discourse—often raised with emotion, sometimes with apprehension, and frequently with political overtones. Yet, beyond slogans and counter-slogans, this question deserves a calmer, more thoughtful examination rooted in history, demographics, and contemporary global developments.
Hinduism—Sanatan Dharma—is not merely a religion but a civilisational framework that predates most organised belief systems. The Vedas and Upanishads, among the oldest surviving texts known to humanity, articulate moral, philosophical, and social principles that emphasise coexistence, plurality, and tolerance. Long before the modern idea of secularism took shape, Bharat functioned as a space where multiple belief systems evolved, interacted, and survived.
This civilisational tolerance is not theoretical. It is evidenced by history itself. Large parts of the subcontinent remained under Mughal rule for nearly six centuries, followed by almost three centuries of British colonial dominance. Despite prolonged political subjugation, Hindu society largely absorbed shocks without pursuing systematic religious retaliation. The land—known for centuries as Bharat—retained its pluralistic ethos even as its name, political structures, and power centres changed.
However, the change in the name India occurred during British rule, and the subcontinent’s identity as a multicultural and multireligious society is therefore not an invention of the modern Constitution; it is a lived historical reality. Minor conflicts, social frictions, and episodes of violence have existed across centuries, but coexistence has overwhelmingly been the dominant pattern.
In my view, however, the global context today is markedly different.
Across continents, religious demographics are changing at a rapid pace. Political Islam, in particular, has in several regions moved beyond matters of faith into forms of ideological and demographic expansionism. This is not a concern raised by fringe voices alone. Leaders across faiths have begun expressing unease. The Pope, for instance, has publicly spoken about demographic shifts and the mounting challenges faced by Christian communities. Western nations—once considered immune to religious radicalisation—are now grappling with parallel societies, cultural friction, and growing security challenges.
India, therefore, cannot afford to view itself in isolation from these global currents.
Closer home, the condition of Hindu minorities in neighbouring countries has become an increasingly serious concern. In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Bangladesh, reports of discrimination, targeted violence, forced conversions, and the steady demographic decline of Hindu populations are well documented. Bangladesh, once projected as a secular alternative in the subcontinent, has witnessed a progressive erosion of minority security, culminating in recent incidents—reportedly including the killing of as many as four Hindus within just ten days—a deeply disturbing development.
It is in this context that recent statements by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat must be understood. His call for attention to the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh—and for unity among Hindu communities globally—was not a call for confrontation but a reminder of a fundamental reality: Hindus, unlike many other faiths, have only one civilisational homeland. There is no second geography where they are the cultural majority, no alternate refuge if that homeland fragments further.
This is not a political claim; it is a demographic fact.
Events within India also reflect a growing assertiveness among sections of Hindu society. The controversy surrounding the Kolkata Knight Riders’ signing of Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rahman is one such instance. Protests erupted not because of sport itself, but due to the perception that normalising engagement while Hindus face violence across the border sends the wrong moral signal. Eventually, the BCCI requested KKR to release the player, citing the escalating controversy.
Whether one agrees with this response or not, it signals a shift. A section of Hindu society is no longer content with symbolic outrage alone; it seeks accountability, coherence, and reciprocity in public actions.
Globally too, political developments have intensified debate. The election of a Muslim mayor in New York—a city symbolic of Western liberalism—triggered international attention not merely because of identity, but due to subsequent actions and statements. Public posturing on foreign judicial matters, symbolic religious gestures in official settings, and appointments surrounded by controversy have raised legitimate questions about the intersection of faith, politics, and governance.
These developments are not isolated. Europe, the UK, and parts of North America are confronting challenges linked to integration, radicalisation, and cultural fragmentation. To dismiss these concerns as paranoia is to ignore lived experiences across societies.
Critics argue that what is being described as a “Hindu awakening” is merely the rise of political Hindu nationalism and that such assertiveness risks increasing communal tensions within India. This caution is not without merit. India’s strength lies in its internal harmony, and any erosion of trust between communities weakens the republic itself.
Yet, it is equally simplistic to demand that Hindus remain perpetually passive while minority rights abroad deteriorate and global ideological pressures mount. Asking for restraint must go hand in hand with acknowledging legitimate fears.
Importantly, the issue is not about supremacy, exclusion, or retaliation. It is about cultural self-preservation. Every major faith community in the world advocates for the protection of its followers and traditions. When Hindus do the same, it should not automatically be framed as intolerance.
The real challenge lies in balance.
India must continue to safeguard the rights and dignity of all its citizens, irrespective of faith. At the same time, policymakers cannot ignore demographic trends, cross-border persecution, or the anxieties of the civilisational majority. Moral consistency demands that pluralism be defended not selectively, but universally.
So, are Hindus awakening?
Perhaps the more accurate question is this: are Hindus beginning to articulate concerns they long absorbed silently? Is this awakening an expression of insecurity, or an overdue assertion of cultural self-awareness in a rapidly changing world?
The answers will depend not just on how Hindu society conducts itself, but also on how institutions—political, judicial, and intellectual—respond. Suppressing debate will only deepen mistrust. Encouraging informed, fact-based discussion may yet strengthen India’s pluralistic foundations.
In a world where identities are hardening and civilisations are reasserting themselves, introspection is not a threat—it is a necessity.
