This is the millennium considered to be a celebration of the self. The self has emerged, and we are on our own, for better or for worse, as opposed to the past where God was the center of the universe. Individuality is not just an inherent right of birth; it is the right of all beings. In no way should religion, or a “divine” institution in the spirit of God, contradict, repress, suppress, or compromise that individuality.

Most people within religion or outside of it will say that religion essentially is conformist. Almost all religions have set out laws that govern your thoughts, actions, the way you dress, pray, eat, drink and many more. An individual can be profiled to a great extent by his religion. Some will justify certain types of conformity for the greater good of society. Someof these dictates are not moral relativism; it’s an absolute set of laws such as thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc. But there are many more prescriptions laid down that unabashedly regulate daily life to the extent of how men and women should dress – and people just accept them or are forcibly made to accept them. When you ask individuals what their priorities are most say it is self-expression and religion is down at the lowest end of the spectrum. Yet most fail to see how religion is controlling their lives. The problem is that religions have become so bureaucratic and God has become so stereotyped as a superimposed being with a dogmatic set of laws rendering religious followers to unabashed exploitation much like the modern apps in your smartphones – yet nobody objects.

Hurting religious sentiment is a misnomer.  Psychologically sentiment is an abnormal condition. While there can be a condition of religious sentiment, being abnormal cannot be hurt but only aggravated.  Sentimentality is an emotional state disproportionate to the situation and thus replaces extreme and generally unthinking feelings for normal ethical and intellectual judgment. Being critical of religion and religious practices is a must for an evolving society to free itself from the archaic practices of the medieval era. Instead of shying away, discussions on religions and methods should be encouraged in a thinking individual. 

Religion should be democratised 

Debating religions in a diverse country like India is really the way to go in the process of evolution of a society more than holding the nation together. But in a charged environment where unfortunately politics is brewed with religion to form an unnatural concoction, the debate veers to discussing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s religious leanings and whether Rahul Gandhi is a practicing catholic. That is neither religion nor politics.

People need to get a hold of life and liberate themselves from the archaic fetters of religions and blind faith and embrace universal love and brotherhood. Religions should be democratized to establish democratic societies and polities. Sanatana Dharma encompasses the list of duties and practices that its followers must comply with. This list of practices includes virtues like honesty, goodwill, patience and generosity. Following this code allows one to reach moksha, a state of spiritual liberation, self-knowledge and enlightenment. The practice of yoga is a vital part of this process as it allows the yogi to achieve a union with their spiritual side.

In Sanatana Dharma, people have the freedom to worship God in any form or state that suits their own tastes and mental development. This is how the different manifestations of God (deities, perceptions) appear in Sanatana philosophy. They are not different gods. They are all different perceptions of the one Supreme Being.  In effect, a Sanatana person can worship anything or not at all, if I may, and still be a follower of Sanatana Dharma. A Hindu remains a Hindu even while praying to no god. As such, the whole term, Sanatana Dharma, can translate as “the natural and eternal way to live.” In fact, Sanatana Dharma is widely considered to be the original term used to describe what we now know as Hinduism, a word coined by foreigners for those who do not follow the books and are now propounded as a religion, which it really is not. It has come to pass that Sanatana and Hinduism are freely used interchangeably.

Sanatana Dharma means essentially to follow one’s eternal duty, which is to quest to understand every individual's core identity, his/her relationship and role in the bigger sense of the Universe and then to learn to live according to those eternal and adhyatmik characteristics, especially attained by one’s own self-realizations. This is also the purpose and mission of the Vedic philosophy and culture, and our ultimate duty in human life. Sanatana philosophy can be applied universally.

Western scholars with their penchant for coded categorization have attempted to classify Hinduism as “polytheistic” — meaning worshiping a number of different gods; or “henotheistic” — having many different gods but regarding one as superior to the others; “pantheistic” — believing that the Universe is divine and that God and Nature are the same. All of these categories apply in some way or other to one or other particular sect or philosophical school, but none of them adequately describe Sanatana Dharma as it is. Sanatana Dharma has no founder, no dogma, no central teaching authority, no creed, no stock theology or generally accepted philosophy, no uniform customs or traditions, and above all insists that all religions are relatively true

Culture and beliefs are also spoken in the same breath as religion, but that may not be right. Consider this. A belief is a state of mind where an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. As such a belief need not necessarily be true or false. A ritual is a set of actions performed mainly for its symbolic value. Tradition is a combination of beliefs and rituals. Culture is a set of values which in the Indian sense is to be respectful, accommodating, open-minded, deeply but not ostensibly spiritual and concerned with the common human welfare. This is how our country has achieved a common culture, despite a staggering pluralistic society, where we find a convergence of beliefs and culture based on societal practices of those who came to India over millennia and made it their home. Religion pulls at this convergence generating tensions.

Need to question religions 

There is a constant need to question religions and their methods. Sanatana philosophy encourages this. India is the origin of Sanatana Dharma (later Hinduism) philosophy, which also gave birth to Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. India, since millennia, has absorbed Zoroastrianism and Judaism. The other two Abrahamic religions Christianity and Islam came to the shores of India within decades of their founding in the Middle East and took root. With such pluralistic beliefs and one culture, India needs to debate religions to make societies aware of their evolution. 

A discussion on religions need not be derogatory of individuals or groups. It is after prolonged discussions and consideration of differing views and opinions the Pope has brought changes in some age-old practices in Christianity. The changes are result of objecting to beliefs (blind faith) in the first instance. In India, I am afraid, there are no public debates on religions because the politicians are afraid; the government is afraid; the media is afraid; the people are afraid; those who are not afraid are dissuaded by those who are afraid. Of course, there are also those with vested interests who want to perpetuate ignorance. They are into exploitation and take shelter behind religious sentiments. The result is the proliferation of fake fakirs, 'sants' and self-declared political patronage.

Views on religions and beliefs have to be expressed. We do not have a right to debate the practices of an individual where only the individual is involved. We have a right to discuss what is practised in public – because it affects society at large.

Even without Sanatana Dharma, isn’t democracy in worshiping God the real religious freedom? Let us not be afraid to debate religions.

(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. Views are personal.)