There is a thin line between intellectual debate and deliberate mischief. The recent remarks by AIMPLB leader Maulana Sajjad Nomani have crossed that line with alarming ease.
His assertion that Hindus are not a majority in Bharat because Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Tamilians, Jats, Lingayats, Sikhs, and various regional communities are not Hindus is not only absurd, but a dangerous exercise in social fragmentation. It is ignorance dressed up as scholarship and arrogance masquerading as constitutional wisdom.
One is compelled to ask: is this historical illiteracy or a calculated attempt to divide Bharat’s civilisational fabric?
Bharat is perhaps the only country where Hinduism is routinely subjected to bizarre redefinitions by those who neither understand its philosophy nor respect its evolution over thousands of years. Hindu civilisation is not a religion founded by a single prophet, nor is it a faith that emerged on a particular date in history. It is the world’s oldest surviving civilisation and a way of life that predates every major organised religion existing today.
Islam emerged in the 7th century in Arabia. Christianity was born over 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. Sikhism came into existence in the 15th century. Buddhism and Jainism originated in Bharat itself and evolved as indigenous philosophical traditions within the broader Indic civilisational ecosystem.
Yet, an AIMPLB leader now seeks to lecture Bharat about who is and who is not a Hindu.
The irony could not be more striking.
His argument is built upon an intentionally deceptive premise: that the diversity within Hindu society invalidates its demographic identity. By that bizarre logic, every nation on Earth would cease to exist as a coherent entity because its people possess different languages, customs, and regional identities.
Are Tamilians not Indians because they speak Tamil? Are Punjabis not Indians because they have distinct traditions? Are Bengalis, Gujaratis, or Assamese separate nations because they possess unique cultural characteristics?
Diversity has never negated unity. It has always strengthened it.
Hindu civilisation itself thrives on diversity. It never demanded uniformity. It accommodates multiple schools of thought, different modes of worship and even those who choose not to worship at all. That is its greatest strength, not its weakness.
Attempting to weaponise caste identities and regional affiliations to break apart Hindu society is an old political playbook. It has been tried for decades with limited success because Bharat’s civilisational consciousness runs much deeper than electoral calculations.
What is even more disturbing is the underlying message being propagated. If, according to the AIMPLB, Hindus are indeed minorities in their own ancestral homeland, then let us pose a straightforward question. If Muslims, who constitute roughly 14 to 15 per cent of the population, are somehow considered a majority under this convoluted arithmetic, will the AIMPLB support declaring Hindus an official minority and extending all constitutionally available minority benefits to them?
The answer, of course, would be an emphatic no.
Because this argument is not about demographics. It is about politics.
The objective is transparent: dismantle the concept of a broad Hindu identity by isolating Dalits, tribals, Sikhs, Lingayats, Jats and regional communities into separate political silos and then build new vote-bank coalitions around those divisions.
It is an old strategy wearing new clothes.
Fortunately, Bharat’s constitutional framework and census methodology are not determined by rhetorical inventions. Every official census continues to recognise Hindus as the overwhelming majority of India’s population while simultaneously protecting the rights of every minority community. That balance has served the nation well.
No amount of semantic gymnastics can alter historical truths.
The AIMPLB was established to protect the rights and interests of Muslims within India’s constitutional framework. It was not created to rewrite Indian civilisation, redraw demographic realities or sow discord among communities that have coexisted for centuries.
Leaders occupying influential positions must exercise responsibility, especially in a nation as diverse as Bharat. Reckless statements designed to provoke social fault lines are neither scholarship nor statesmanship. They are acts of irresponsible political adventurism.
Bharat’s diversity is not a weakness waiting to be exploited. It is a strength that has allowed this civilisation to survive invasions, colonisation and countless attempts at fragmentation.
Those who seek to divide Hindus by reducing a 5,000-year-old civilisation into isolated compartments fundamentally misunderstand Bharat itself.
And perhaps that is the greatest indictment of all.
Ignorance is unfortunate. Weaponising that ignorance to divide society is unforgivable.
