“Whenever dharma declines and adharma rises, I manifest Myself.” — Bhagavad Gita (4.7)
Perhaps that line has never felt more relevant than it does today — not because the world has forgotten dharma, but because those who inherited its stories have grown hesitant to tell them. Yet something shifted recently, in the most unexpected of ways. When Netflix released Kurukshetra, an animated retelling of the Mahabharata, millions of young Indians — many of whom had never opened the epic or heard its verses beyond school textbooks — watched in fascination. Social media lit up with discussions about Bhishma’s vow, Draupadi’s fire, Arjuna’s doubt, and Krishna’s calm. Suddenly, it wasn’t “boring.” It wasn’t “too long.” It wasn’t “just mythology.” It was magnetic — vast, tragic, philosophical, and deeply human.
What changed wasn’t the story — it was the shame that had been attached to knowing it. For years, young Hindus had been conditioned to treat their own epics as outdated relics, not living philosophies. They knew Greek gods better than Vedic ones, Marvel heroes more intimately than Mahabharata’s warriors. The issue was never disinterest, but hesitation — an instinctive caution born of years of being told that enthusiasm for their own culture could be mistaken for extremism.
And that hesitation defines the modern Hindu — not a lack of faith, but a fear of being misunderstood for having it.
The hesitation didn’t appear overnight. It grew slowly — word by word, label by label. In recent years, a strange distortion has taken root in public language. A devout Muslim is called faithful. A practicing Sikh is called religious. A church-going Christian is called God-fearing or pious. But a Hindu who prays daily, who fasts on Mahashivratri or chants the Hanuman Chalisa before an exam, is called kattar — an extremist, a hardliner.
The difference lies not in devotion, but in description. Somewhere in the postcolonial dictionary of modern India, words that should have signified reverence began to sound like warnings. “Bhakt,” once a word of tenderness and surrender, now carries the weight of mockery. It is no longer used to describe Mirabai or Tulsidas, but to sneer at anyone who dares to speak proudly of Krishna or Rama. “Sanatani,” once a word of continuity, has been recast as political shorthand. Even “Hindu,” a word that once meant belonging — to a way of life, a rhythm of thought, a civilizational hum — now requires disclaimers.
No one imposed these distortions upon the community; they were internalized slowly, almost willingly, as Hindus learned to self-censor out of the fear of being misread. The tragedy of the modern Hindu is not that others mislabel him, but that he preemptively edits himself to avoid it. A young Hindu woman may light a diya before exams and still add, “but I’m not that religious.” A man might post a photo from Kedarnath and feel compelled to add a quote about “spiritual energy,” careful not to seem political. It’s a performance of moderation that no one demanded explicitly — but one that everyone learned instinctively.
And yet, look closer, and you’ll see that this double standard doesn’t exist uniformly across faiths. A Muslim man who prays five times a day, a Sikh who keeps his kesh, a Christian who wears a cross — all are seen as practicing their beliefs sincerely. But a Hindu who performs sandhyavandanam or visits temples regularly risks being perceived as rigid or regressive. Somehow, what is “devotion” for one becomes “fanaticism” for another. This linguistic imbalance has reshaped how Hindus perceive themselves — making them careful curators of their faith, polishing away any edge that might offend the modern gaze.
But this hesitation is not born only from words — it comes from a deeper cultural disconnect, one that has widened over generations. For decades, Hindu identity has been reduced to symbols without substance. Ask a young urban Indian about their faith, and they might name festivals, not philosophies. Diwali is fireworks, Holi is color, Navratri is garba — stripped of their deeper meanings. The stories behind them — the philosophical wars between light and darkness, the metaphors for time and truth — have been drowned out by school syllabi that call them “mythology” and media portrayals that treat them as superstition.
Most young Hindus know of Rama, but not of his doubts. They know Krishna as divine, but not as the teacher who redefined action and detachment in the Gita. They’ve heard of Karna’s loyalty, but not of his moral conflict. In a world obsessed with productivity and performance, there’s little room left for the slow, layered rhythm of reflection that their epics once invited.
And yet, the blame does not lie with outsiders or systems. It lies within — in the community’s own complacency. While other faiths built institutions to preserve continuity — Sunday schools, gurdwara classes, madrasas — Hinduism relied on the informal transmission of wisdom through families, stories told by grandparents, or temple festivals that carried memory through ritual. But as urbanization fractured joint families and temples turned into tourist stops, that chain quietly broke.
What remains now is an inherited vocabulary without grammar — mantras recited without meaning, festivals celebrated without understanding. The disconnection is not a failure of intelligence, but of intention. Generations of Hindus grew up hearing that “all religions are the same,” a sentiment meant to promote harmony but which, ironically, erased curiosity about their own. In trying not to appear superior, they ended up becoming strangers to their own civilization.
This, too, is part of the misunderstood modern Hindu’s dilemma: an identity that survives in fragments — visible yet hollow, practiced yet unanchored.
The modern Hindu wears a Rudraksha bracelet but may not know what each bead signifies. They attend Ganesh Chaturthi but cannot recall the story of Ganesha’s rebirth. They touch their parents’ feet but laughs awkwardly when asked why. The symbols remain, but the soul behind them fades into generic spirituality.
And when knowledge thins, pride becomes fragile. The Hindu’s hesitation is not arrogance — it’s insecurity masquerading as tolerance. Because one cannot defend what one does not understand, and one cannot love what one has been taught to be ashamed of.
If a faith does not tell its own story, someone else will — and they already have. In pop culture, in academia, in the global narrative, Hinduism is often flattened into exotica: cow worship, caste, and karma — a caricature of complexity. Meanwhile, its vast philosophies of logic, consciousness, and ethics — from the Nyaya Sutras to the Upanishads — remain unexplored by the very people who inherited them.
The result is a curious paradox. The modern Hindu lives amid the richest spiritual heritage on Earth but walks through it like a museum visitor — awed, reverent, and ultimately disconnected.
Yet even in this disconnection, there’s a spark of possibility — as seen with Kurukshetra. The response to that series wasn’t nostalgia; it was recognition. It reminded a generation that their stories were never parochial — they were cosmic, deeply human, timeless. For a brief moment, it wasn’t uncool to be curious about the Mahabharata. People weren’t afraid of being called bhakts; they were proud of being engaged.
It proved something vital: the so-called “modern Hindu” was never allergic to faith — just allergic to being misunderstood for having it.
But to understand how this hesitation deepened, one must look at the roots of perception — at the quiet rewiring that began not in temples, but in classrooms.
The British may have left India, but they left behind something subtler than rule — they left vocabulary. In their system, Western theology was “religion,” and everything else became “mythology.” The Vedas were not scripture but “texts.” The Ramayana was not history but “legend.” The Mahabharata was “a story” — not a record of dharma and consequence but an allegory to be admired and then dismissed.
This wasn’t just linguistic framing — it was psychological colonization. It told generations of Indians that their gods were characters, not consciousness; that their philosophies were folklore; that their rituals were remnants of a primitive past. And once that vocabulary took root, the colonizer’s departure didn’t undo it — it simply changed accents. The English-educated Indian elite inherited the same gaze, now pointed inward.
It’s almost ironic that it took outsiders to remind Indians of the beauty of what they had forgotten. That it took the Beatles visiting Rishikesh, Steve Jobs and Julia Roberts seeking Neem Karoli Baba, and even the Japanese animating the Ramayana, for Indians to reawaken to their own civilization. The same pattern continues today — it took Netflix, not the Ramcharitmanas, to make the Mahabharata cool again. But this isn’t coincidence; it is consequence. Six hundred years of Islamic rule and two hundred years of European colonization left behind not just political scars, but a deeper wound — a civilizational inferiority complex. And even after eight decades of freedom, many Hindus continue to battle the quiet, collective self-esteem crisis that colonization created. A people who once taught the world to seek divinity within now look to the world for permission to value their own.
Colonial education did not just teach Indians to think in English; it taught them to think of themselves in English. It made Sanskrit sound suspiciously religious and Western philosophy sound respectably intellectual. Students read Plato and Aristotle as philosophy but dismissed the Upanishads as mysticism. They studied the Enlightenment but never the Advaita Vedanta. Rationality became Western by default; faith became Eastern by embarrassment.
And so began the long quiet of the modern Hindu mind — a silence mistaken for tolerance, an amnesia mistaken for humility.
The media, too, carried this inheritance forward. For decades, Indian cinema and television rarely portrayed Hindu devotion as depth; it was spectacle. The pandit was corrupt, the sadhu hypocritical, the bhakt naive. Films showing a Muslim character praying were framed as moving; a Hindu performing aarti often became comic relief or moral excess. Even when intention wasn’t malicious, the repetition was enough. A generation grew up seeing their own rituals through the lens of irony.
In popular discourse, words like “cow,” “temple,” “aarti,” and “karma” began to sound politically loaded rather than spiritually profound. Modern secularism, which should have meant respect for all faiths, instead evolved into discomfort with one. To appear “progressive,” one had to visibly detach from one’s Hindu symbols. A tilak on the forehead invited questions. A mantra ringtone invited judgment. And so, secularism — which should have balanced pride with peace — instead made silence the safest form of devotion.
The modern Hindu learned not to display faith, only to hint at it. “I’m spiritual but not religious,” became the polite password of belonging in global spaces. But this “spirituality” was often a diluted version of something once vast and rigorous. Meditation without mantra, yoga without philosophy, festivals without meaning — fragments that traveled well in the West because they came stripped of their roots.
In many ways, the global success of Hindu ideas — yoga studios, mindfulness, vegetarianism — became a bittersweet victory. The world adopted the body of Hinduism and discarded its soul. What the West called “wellness” was once sadhana; what it called “mindfulness” was once dhyana. And while the world commercialized it, many Hindus internalized the idea that the original context — the chants, the rituals, the Sanskrit — was something to be embarrassed about.
This is where the tragedy of forgetting becomes self-inflicted. For centuries, Hinduism’s strength lay in its fluidity — its refusal to be dogmatic, its comfort with contradiction. It was never fragile. It allowed debate, dissent, and reinterpretation. Charvaka’s atheism and Shankara’s Advaita existed within the same civilizational rhythm. But tolerance, over time, turned to timidity. In avoiding conflict, the Hindu began to avoid conversation altogether.
And when a civilization stops explaining itself, it starts eroding.
The crisis, then, is not one of persecution but participation. The Hindu community did not lose its faith to invaders or missionaries — it lost it to neglect. Other faiths institutionalized continuity. Hinduism trusted memory — and memory, without renewal, fades. Temples became tourist sites. Scriptures became symbols of political convenience. And the language of reverence turned into the language of ridicule.
In truth, no one stole Hindu identity. It was simply left unattended.
But every silence carries within it the possibility of a voice returning. The slow resurgence of interest in the Mahabharata, the rediscovery of Sanskrit literature, the quiet confidence with which many young Indians are now reclaiming their roots — these are not signs of revivalism, but of repair. They signal a generation that no longer wants to apologize for its inheritance, but also doesn’t want to weaponize it.
This reclamation, however, must be anchored not in defensiveness, but in depth. To reclaim Hindu identity is not to shout louder, but to understand better. To know why Om is chanted, what karma truly means, what dharma demands — not in hashtags, but in thought. The future of Hindu identity depends not on how loudly it is asserted, but on how wisely it is articulated.
And that wisdom begins with language. The day we stop calling a devotee kattar and start calling them faithful, stop using “bhakt” as an insult and restore it as an honor — the shift will have begun. Because the erosion of identity always begins in vocabulary, and its revival must begin there too.
Consider how even within Hinduism, language has layered divisions. A Tamil Brahmin chants the Rudram, a Bengali recites the Chandi Path, a Gujarati celebrates Navratri through garba, and a Kashmiri through kheer bhog. Yet all flow into the same current. The diversity that should have been celebrated as civilizational wealth is often mocked as confusion. What other faith would be embarrassed of its plurality?
The modern Hindu’s greatest challenge is not external hostility, but internal fragmentation. The argument between “liberal Hindus” and “traditional Hindus,” between those who see religion as culture and those who see it as creed, is a false one. Hinduism has always contained both. Its strength was synthesis, not uniformity.
To be Hindu was never to follow blindly; it was to engage, to question, to understand. The Gita itself is a dialogue, not a decree. Krishna does not demand obedience — he demands reflection. Arjuna’s doubt is not condemned; it is sacred. But modern Hindus, burdened by defensiveness, have forgotten that doubt was never sin — indifference was.
That is the quiet invitation of this moment — to return, not to ritual alone, but to understanding. To teach the stories not as superstition but as symbols of psychology, ethics, and choice. To study not only the Gita, but the Yoga Sutras, the Brahma Sutras, the Arthashastra, the Natya Shastra — all testaments to a civilization that once saw art, politics, and metaphysics as part of the same divine spectrum.
The Hindu child should not have to learn her faith from Western textbooks or through irony. She should be able to open her own books and find her ancestors thinking as deeply as any philosopher, feeling as humanly as any poet.
And yes — there is no one to blame but ourselves. For too long, we outsourced understanding to priests, representation to filmmakers, and preservation to politicians. We forgot that Hinduism was never meant to be owned; it was meant to be lived, questioned, and renewed.
If the modern Hindu feels misunderstood, it is partly because they stopped doing the understanding first.
The path forward, then, is not outrage but education. Read the Gita without fear of being labeled. Celebrate festivals not as social obligations, but as philosophical dialogues. Remember that the same civilization that gave the world zero also gave it shunya — emptiness as a concept of fullness.
To reclaim without resentment is to return without anger — to rediscover not a lost pride, but a quiet clarity.
Because the truth is, Hinduism never needed defenders. It needed rememberers. Those who would carry its light without noise, its complexity without apology. Those who would chant not to prove, but to understand.
And perhaps that is how the misunderstood modern Hindu will find peace — not by fighting caricature, but by outgrowing it.
When devotion ceases to need explanation, when bhakti sounds as beautiful as faith, when lighting a lamp feels as natural as whispering a prayer — that will be the moment of reclamation. Not loud, not defensive, but dignified.
Because faith, when carried with humility, doesn’t demand validation. It simply shines — steady, ancient, and unashamed.
And maybe then, the words of the Gita will feel less like prophecy and more like memory:
“Whenever dharma declines and adharma rises, I manifest Myself.”
Perhaps the divine need not manifest again — perhaps remembrance itself is the manifestation.
For more content, check out Her Campus at MUJ.
And if you’d like to explore more of my world, visit my corner at HCMUJ — Aditi Thakur