Those who seek inspiration from a Western (or the Islamic or Communist) model and use their lens to define Bharat don't understand what this land and its people are all about.
That includes many Indians who have only been under the influence of the education system as left behind by the erstwhile colonists (including the invaders). Colonists are gone, but coloniality remains.
They rely on Western ideas of separating faith from state, thereby overlooking the uniqueness of our land, its people, and their idea of their Being.
To make a distinction between Hinduism and Bharat is to discriminate one against the other and do injustice to both.
Hindus and Bharat aren't separate entities. They are not even joined at the hip or soldered together.
In the Indian psyche, Bharat without the Hindus or the Hindus without Bhartiyata can't exist.
The sari-clad imagery of Bharat Mata (Mother-India), which resembles powerful Hindu Goddesses, bears the fact.
In fact, the word Hindu, which is not mentioned in any scriptures, comes from Hindustan, not the other way around.
The word Hindustan was coined by those who lived outside Bharat to describe the geographic significance of the landmass. Hindustan is the approximate region between Him-paravat (now the Himalayan mountains) & Indu-mahasagar (now the Indian Ocean). That area is what they called Hindustan, and the people living there as the Hindus.
Those people on the west of ancient Bharat recognized that in the form of faith existing in Hindustan, all and any belief or practice, including none at all, is accepted, i.e., if one is seeking peace, redemption, or salvation.
The only fundamental here - is that there's none.
Thus, the narrow singular steadfast concepts of The God, The Holy Book, The Holy Day, etc., do not exist here. There are no claimants, each is a seeker - based on his or her method or understanding.
It is this philosophy which gave rise to Bhartiata or "Cultural Secularism," one which allowed the Hindus to accept the Jews, fleeing from religious persecution and to shelter them; it allowed for the making of one of the earliest mosques in the world i.e., Cheraman Masjid by a Hindu king for the convenience of his Muslim visitors; it allowed for the Ezharappallikal Churches in the first century within the Brahmin community at Malabar Coast; it allowed for a Hindu king to resettle the Parsis who were displaced from Persia including building a fire temple for them and one in which the king himself or his subjects agreed not to enter as requested by the Parsi immigrants.
All this much before a written Western-influenced constitution found its roots here.
This ancient, open, and wise "Cultural Secularism" is an integral part of the Hindu psyche and governs the Hindu mindset. The current constitution that governs India, as derived by copying the Western concept of constitution, is somewhat incompatible with India's innate thought.
In India, a secular government must embrace Dharma and not avoid it.
In fact, the actual name of the practices of the people of Hindustan is Sanatana Dharma, meaning a timeless principled duty.
This gives the people of the land a collective sense of Beingness that is distinct and unique from the rest of the world.
Consider this: Both the Pakistani and Indian sides have Punjabis, and the Bangladeshi and Indian sides have Bengalis. Although the language and many practices of both may overlap, the Beingness differs, and therefore, the Purpose, too.
The distinction between "matra bhumi" (or only a piece of land) and "matru bhumi" (the motherland) came to the fore, and so, as demanded by their Islamic leaders, the partitions were inevitable.
Had they accepted the land with reverence and sacredness, irrespective of their religion, they would have found enough cultural compatibility with those practicing Sanatana Dharma.
Since Dharmic people do not have fundamentals, as in structured "religion," there is no scope for "othering" those whose practices differ.
One needn't be born a Hindu; one can choose to live as one or even abandon the religious or ritualistic aspects around it.
Obviously, then, in the conscience of Hindus, concepts such as blasphemy, heresy, apostasy & punishment thereof are alien. Thus, there has never been a conflict between the State and religion, nor have there been "holy wars" here, as in the West.
How can there be a conflict when it is not even a religion in the word's true meaning?
If it is anything, it is a way of life - to each their own!
However, the idea of the motherland above everything else is a must and non-negotiable.
Prime Minister Modi's success has been in the simple fact that he has managed to harness that Beingness and given it a solid purpose. He refused to be anyone else but a Dharmic Indian.
Bharat is innately Dharmic and, therefore, panth nirpeksh, or path neutral. In other words, the pluralism of the polytheistic way of living is fully compatible with the monotheistic religions. The vice versa should also be true.
In essence, a Dharmic Christian, Dharmic Muslim, or Dharmic Atheist can also be rooted in our past and wedded to our collective future of serving the motherland with no conflict.
Any person can practice any religion or none at all and still be a Hindustani simultaneously.
It is, therefore, possible for all to remain in service of this sacred land and add sweetness, like the example of the 'sugar-in-the-milk' that the wise Parsis have demonstrated after leaving Persia and becoming Indian.
The maturity of the respective religious shepherds would be in directing their flock to harness the spirit that one's religion can change or be abandoned. Still, the core tenets of one's culture needn't.
In conclusion, the Indian civilizational culture, values, and ethos, which give this nation its collective mindset and conscience, lie beyond the ambit of any legislation. It is that which truly governs lifestyle at the conscious and unconscious levels, all of which existed for several millennia before the constitution was written.
The prosperity of any minority depends on consciously remaining anchored in ancient India's Civilizational Ethos, which gives it its cultural secularism, and on remaining aligned to an Interdependent common future that is in tandem with service to the motherland.
No group should claim exclusivity and ask others to accommodate them in a manner that inconveniences most others.
It then follows from universal commonsense, and applicable worldwide, that the real security of any minority is in the goodwill of the majority, not the law.
Every group must assimilate; no one should self-isolate themselves.
May the Gods bless Bharat and her Dharma 🙏
