For a major part of my life, I considered Hinduism just a religion. But as you grow older, you enter a stage when you wish to know more. That’s when I realized Hinduism is more than a religion. It’s a broad philosophical framework that accepts a wide range of beliefs, including atheism.
Did you know Hindus can believe in multiple gods or a single god if they wish, but they are also free not to believe in any god if they wish not to? Non-believers are still considered Hindu. They are not ostracized or excluded from the community. This openness is reflected in ancient Hindu schools of thought, such as the Carvaka and Samkhya schools. These schools, although lesser known, even among Hindus, are testaments to Hindu philosophy’s pluralistic nature.
Carvaka: The Atheist School of Hinduism
Carvaka is an ancient Indian philosophy that openly rejects belief in God, the soul, karma, reincarnation, and life after death.
The core idea of Carvaka is that only tangible things, such as those we can see, touch, or directly experience, are real. The rest is fluff. Its thinkers believe that Gods and heavens are man-made concepts designed to control people.
The main focus of the Carvaka school is to live a happy life in the present, without tying your actions to living a good afterlife, because there’s none. The Carvaka philosophy endorses materialism, which is good news for those who are all about living the good life.
In short, Carvaka says, “Enjoy your life here and now, because that’s all there is.”
Samkhya: A Spiritual but God-Free Philosophy
Samkhya is a Hindu school of philosophy that is spiritual but does not rely on the concept of a creator god. Its core idea is that the universe consists of two things: Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (nature). The goal is to free yourself from suffering by understanding that your true self is not your body or mind, but pure awareness.
Samkhya does not completely deny the existence of God, but rather states that belief in God is not necessary for achieving spiritual liberation. You must have seen this philosophy being practiced through methods such as Yoga.
Personal Beliefs & Their Acceptance in Hinduism
I’m not religious. However, I’m not an atheist either. I’m someone who ardently believes we are all praying to the same universal energy, just under different names, with different rules.
If there’s only one true religion, how does one explain miracles occurring in every faith?
I have had my prayers answered when I was a traditional Hindu believer, praying to Goddess Durga. My prayers were also answered when I prayed to the universe. This has shaped my impression that God is universal, one divine energy known by many names. Each path may look different, but they all lead to the same source. The only thing that matters when you pray is the depth of your emotions.
Hinduism accommodates thoughts like mine. I’m not judged or ostracized for holding such views. The religion does not demand that I conform to rigid principles. Instead, it allows space to question and for my beliefs to evolve. This openness and freedom are what make Hinduism deeply meaningful to me. I can still call myself a Hindu, even without being traditionally religious.
This openness in Hinduism extends beyond individual beliefs to matters like gender and sexuality. Ancient texts and temple sculptures across India depict a spectrum of gender identities, showing that Hinduism has historically acknowledged and embraced LGBTQ individuals. Few traditional religions offer this level of acceptance. That is what makes Hinduism not just a religion, but an inclusive way of life.
A Message to Hindu Youth: Your Religion Is More Open Than You Think
Despite its pluralistic, “modern” nature, many Hindu youth today feel that Hinduism isn’t “cool” enough. Perhaps because its rich philosophy is rarely taught during childhood. Outside India, Hinduism isn’t widely practiced or represented on global platforms, and the Western media often reduces it to stereotypes. There is also a lot of misinformation spread about Hinduism by people who know very little about the religion.
What many don’t realize is that Hinduism is one of the most liberal and inclusive systems of thought in the world. It is secular in spirit, embracing all forms of belief, including atheism. Hindus are free to question religious leaders and traditions without fear of punishment, reflecting the openness and reformative spirit that lies at the core of their faith. This is why you see many Hindus questioning even our religious leaders.
Conclusion
While some Hindu hardliners insist on rigid practices, such views do not represent the true essence of Hinduism. There is no single rulebook. Instead, there are diverse schools of thought that uphold intellectual freedom and individual choice. That is something to be proud of. I hope Hindus remember this when they encounter misrepresentation, hate, and misinformation about our religion and culture online or offline. Rather than accepting distorted narratives, we should take pride in the fact that Hinduism offers space for everyone: believers, skeptics, and reformers alike.
There’s so much bad news everywhere. Wars, riots, terror attacks, persecution, and discrimination. I don’t know about you, but I’ve started to feel helpless, knowing I hold no power to fix these problems. As individuals, there’s only so much we can do. What is in our control is how we express our views, calmly and with clarity. But even that becomes difficult when those around us try to silence any perspective that doesn’t match their own. They get aggressive. We get perplexed. It becomes a vicious cycle. One that’s hard to escape. It drains our time, disturbs our emotional balance, and pushes away those who genuinely want to understand us.
In the midst of all this, I recently attended an online yoga session on International Yoga Day. We meditated together as a group, and it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and calming experiences I’ve had in a while. The meditation lasted only 7 minutes, but it had a noticeable, immediate impact. I felt centred. It helped me go about the rest of my day with a calm focus, even while handling everyday chores or reading the news. This is new for me. For the past few years, my mind has been troubled by witnessing the coldness with which society operates. There was a lingering sense of doom that had become hard to manage. So when meditation helped soften that heaviness, even slightly, it came as a welcome relief. I allowed myself to sit with that emotion and savour it.
The guide assured us that the control over our minds would improve even further with consistent practice. He said that even just 7 minutes of daily meditation can make a noticeable difference over time. I’m still new to the practice, so it’s too early for me to say how lasting the effects are. But one thing I can say for sure: you feel noticeably better after just the first session.
What made those few minutes so calming was the simple act of focusing only on the breath and the space between the eyebrows. In that short span, there were no screens, no distractions. Just stillness. It felt like a small step toward making peace with myself. This is what I experienced in my first few days of meditation. I’m not sure yet if I can commit to doing it every single day, but it’s something I genuinely want to try.
I’m not the body, I’m not the mind
As we meditated, this chant of “I’m not the body, I’m not the mind” by Sadhguru played in the background, accompanied by soothing flute music. It felt like an invitation to disconnect from the body and mind, to simply let yourself be. You don’t have to react to everything. You can observe your experiences as an outsider, from a third-person perspective. Feel your emotions, acknowledge them, but don’t let them consume you beyond control so that you lose sight of logic.
If you’re interested in trying the same meditation, you can do it at home by downloading the “Miracle of Mind by Sadhguru” app on your phone. The session includes the same calming chant and ends with a short 1-minute video from Sadhguru, offering simple insights on daily practice.
Now, I understand some may have reservations about Sadhguru due to political or personal views, or unverified claims. But I’d encourage you to look past that and focus instead on what this practice can offer you personally.
I’ve tried other meditation apps too, but they often felt too Western in their approach. This one, however, feels grounded in Indian sensibilities, with gentle flute music and guided instructions that actually help you stay focused. In a culture where complete silence isn’t always easy to adapt to, this format works well. It’s thoughtfully designed for an Indian audience, making meditation more accessible and less intimidating.
Even if India agrees to peace talks with Pakistan, who exactly are we supposed to talk to?
The Pakistan Army? The army chief, Asim Munir, has called Kashmir their “jugular vein” – they aren’t letting go. He raked up anti-Hindu, anti-India sentiments before the Pahalgam attacks. He stated, “Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life,” and urged parents to instill this bigoted narrative in their children to preserve Pakistan’s identity.
The Pakistani Prime Minister? Just a puppet with no real power over the military. Funerals of designated Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists have been attended by members of the Pakistani Army, further reinforcing allegations of state complicity. Such actions raise serious concerns about the Pakistan government’s commitment to counterterrorism, especially when these individuals are recognized as terrorists by the international community.
Pakistani celebrities? They won’t even whisper a word against state-backed terrorism. They rarely acknowledge well-documented facts, such as Osama bin Laden having found safe haven within Pakistan’s borders. They speak about “having a voice” in Pakistan. Yet, none have dared to criticize Asim Munir for his communal, anti-Hindu remarks, despite knowing that Hindus are living within their own country as well.
The civilians? The majority views India as the villain and often denies the existence of terrorists within their own borders. This raises an important question: Do they not consider figures like Osama bin Laden, Hafiz Saeed, and Masood Azhar as terrorists? Are they seen merely as ordinary civilians? When they refer to “terrorists,” is it only groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other factions causing unrest within Pakistan that they have in mind?
So really. Whom should we sit across the table with to discuss peace? There are no viable options.
Attacks Initiated by Pakistan
In all the following attacks initiated by Pakistan, India has demonstrated extreme restraint:
Attack
Year
Fatalities
Bombay Blasts
1993
257
Lajpat Nagar Blast
1996
13
J&K Assembly Blast
2001
38
Parliament Attack
2001
9
Raghunath Temple Attack
2002
12
Kurnool Train Crash
2002
20
Akshardham Attack
2002
33
Mumbai Bombings
2003
52
Delhi Blasts
2005
62
Varanasi Blasts
2006
28
Mumbai Train Blasts
2006
189
Samjhauta Express Blast
2007
68
Hyderabad Blasts
2007
42
Jaipur Blasts
2008
63
Ahmedabad Blasts
2008
56
Mumbai Attacks (26/11)
2008
166
Patna Bombings
2013
6
Pathankot Attack
2016
7
Uri Attack
2016
19
Pulwama Attack
2019
40
Pahalgam Attack
2025
26
India’s restraint in the face of repeated cross-border terrorism is often seen by Pakistan as a weakness. The ongoing attacks have led many Indians to believe that simply maintaining the status quo won’t bring lasting peace.
India’s Efforts Towards Peace Have Gone Unnoticed
India has made several efforts in the past to reach out and promote peace. We have celebrated Pakistani singers, actors, cricketers, and artists, and defended them when the Indian government initiated a ban against them.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was revered, even after singing a controversial song with the line “Muslims should not allow kafirs (non-Muslims) in their homes.” Mahira Khan and Hania Aamir were regulars in Bollywood fashion pages, and Indian women admired Fawad Khan.
Yet, none of these figures had the courage to denounce the terror networks in their own backyard or question Asim Munir’s communal statements.
We extended every olive branch, but it was met with betrayal, silence, and violence. It’s time to stop romanticizing those who wear a false pro-India mask while harboring hatred.
Pakistan’s Blatant Radicalism
In the current war, the Indian Army has focused on precision strikes targeting terrorist camps and military assets, with considerable efforts to avoid civilian harm. The death of any innocent civilians in terrorist camps is deeply unfortunate, but could have been avoided by Pakistan. Why were civilians present in known terrorist camps? Were they placed there deliberately to attract international sympathy and deflect blame?
In contrast, Pakistan’s use of drones in civilian zones has drawn comparisons to Hamas-style tactics against Israel. If not for the advanced air defence systems in both India and Israel, the death toll could have been far higher.
Pakistan has often revealed its radical side openly. To cite a few examples:
In a recent interview with Sky News journalist Yalda Hakim, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif acknowledged his country’s historical support for terrorist organizations. He stated, “We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades… and the West, including Britain.”
Khawaja Asif, while addressing a session of the Pakistan National Assembly, said that students in madrassas will serve as the country’s second line of defence in wars, when needed, implying they are disposable.
The former director general of the ISI, Asad Durrani, in an Al Jazeera interview, said the death of 150 APS Peshawar school children was “collateral damage” in pursuit of “broader” national interests.
Mubasher Lucman, founder of the Pakistani television network ARY Digital, during a podcast with journalist Naseem Hanif, stated that if Pakistan were to win a war against India, he would want to claim Indian movie actresses as maal-e-ghanimat—a term historically referring to war spoils, including enslaved women (sex slaves).
During a protest outside the Pakistan High Commission in London on April 25, 2025, following the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, Colonel Taimur Rahat, Pakistan’s Army and Air Advisor in the UK, made a provocative throat-slitting gesture towards Indian demonstrators. This is perhaps the first time a diplomat of any country has made such a shocking and radical gesture in public. The act not only defies diplomatic conduct but also reflects a deeply irresponsible and provocative mindset, especially in the context of a civilian tragedy.
Former Pakistani cricketer Danish Kaneria, one of the few Hindus to represent Pakistan at the international level, publicly accused former teammate Shahid Afridi of discriminatory behavior during their time together on the national team. Kaneria alleged that Afridi repeatedly pressured him to convert to Islam and excluded him from team activities, including meals.
Shahid Afridi’s cousin, Shaquib Afridi, was a commander of the Islamist terrorist group Harkat-ul-Ansar. He was killed by Indian security forces in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, in 2003. Reports indicate that Shaquib had been active in the region for approximately two years prior to his death.
In an undated video that surfaced online, former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Akhtar discussed the Islamic prophecy of Ghazwa-e-Hind, which refers to a prophesied battle for the Islamic conquest of India. In the video, Akhtar stated: “Ghazwa-e-Hind is mentioned in our sacred books. We will first capture Kashmir and then invade India from all sides for Ghazwa-e-Hind.“
Pakistani actor Hamza Ali Abbasi has publicly expressed support for Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba and the alleged mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
In a televised discussion, Waqar Younis praised Pakistani cricketer Mohammad Rizwan for offering Namaz during a match, emphasizing it was done “in front of Hindus,” which he found particularly satisfying.
Zaid Hamid, a Pakistani political commentator, propagated conspiracy theories, claiming that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were orchestrated by “Hindu Zionists.” He has also stated that India will be “trounced and enslaved according to Sharia if Hindus don’t repent and embrace Islam.“
The videos and news articles for each controversy listed above are available online.
If Pakistani diplomats, politicians, cricketers, and celebrities act this way and are left largely uncriticized, what hope do you have from ordinary civilians?
The “Jugular Vein”: Kashmir
Pakistanis and the international community often focus on the “oppression of Kashmiri Muslims” and the call to “free Kashmir,” but they conveniently overlook the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus, a community forcibly displaced from their ancestral land. They are yet to return out of fear.
The genocide of Kashmiri Hindus (whitewashed as an “exodus”) is a tragic chapter in the region’s history. They, as the indigenous people of the land, have every right to return to their homes. Many Kashmiri Muslims are ready to welcome them back, acknowledging the need for healing and reconciliation. However, Pakistani-backed terrorists continue to block this process, instigating violence and creating an atmosphere of fear every time Kashmiri Hindus attempt to settle in Kashmir.
The narrative of “freedom” for Kashmir remains incomplete without acknowledging the rights and voices of the Kashmiri Hindu community. As the original inhabitants of the region, their cultural and historical ties to Kashmir that span thousands of years. Any move to integrate Kashmir into Pakistan would only deepen their marginalization. History bears witness: the Hindu population in Pakistan has sharply declined due to forced conversions, persecution, displacement, and violence. These facts raise serious concerns about the future of Kashmiri Hindus under such a scenario. To safeguard their identity, rights, and survival, it is vital that Kashmir remains an integral part of India.
It is time the international community recognizes this truth and supports the return of Kashmiri Hindus to their land, allowing for genuine reconciliation and the restoration of peace. Until this happens, international human rights activists should shift their focus to the “Free Balochistan” and “Free Iran from Islamic Regime” campaigns. Currently, they are more oppressed than Kashmiris, and their plight requires global attention.
UN Resolution
The United Nations (UN) has addressed the issue of Kashmir through Resolution 47, passed in 1948. The resolution emphasizes the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. It proposes that a plebiscite should be held to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide whether they wish to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.
However, this resolution also includes conditions for the plebiscite, the most important being the withdrawal of “all Pakistani nationals” and “tribal forces” from the region to create a neutral environment for a fair vote. This is the first requirement in Resolution 47 that needs to be met. However, it does not get stressed enough.
The presence of Pakistani-backed terrorists in the region complicates the situation and directly contradicts the conditions of the UN resolution. Until Pakistan withdraws these forces and halts its support for terrorism, the possibility of implementing the UN resolution’s provisions remains unfulfilled.
I have covered this information in detail in a separate Kashmir Plebiscite blog post.
War or Peace?
Every past peace talk with Pakistan has failed. Not once, but multiple times.
Should India keep repeating the same cycle just to comfort a few people’s idealism? At what cost? More lives, more betrayal, and more denial?
I’m not advocating for war. But let’s be clear. Peace isn’t possible with a neighbour who constantly thirsts for our blood.
In such times, I choose to trust our Indian leaders, intelligence, and armed forces to make the best call for protecting the nation, not some random social media activist who would sell their soul for money.
If my country wants to teach the neighbour a lesson, I would support it. If it says it’s going to withdraw, I would support that too. In other words, the country comes above everything else. Jai Hind.
As I write this, an Indian news channel is broadcasting peaceful protests by Kashmiris condemning the recent Pakistani terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam. One protester says, “Pakistan doesn’t want us to live in peace. They’re destroying our livelihood by constantly sending terror into our land.”
After years, Kashmir was finally seeing progress. Businesses were recovering, and for the first time in ages, children completed a full academic year, attending school instead of being pulled into stone pelting and street violence funded by Pakistan’s terrorist groups.
So, who exactly are these Pakistani terrorists fighting for? Themselves? Their religion? What does Pakistan gain by funding terrorism or sheltering terrorists on its soil, other than being rebranded year after year globally as a “terrorist state”?
Where are the voices of Pakistani celebrities, many of whom have large Indian fan bases, when it comes to condemning this violence?
A quick scroll through Pakistani Reddit forums shows users justifying the attack as “resistance.” When will ordinary Pakistanis tell their government and military to stop sponsoring terrorism in Indian Kashmir?
When will they let Kashmir breathe in peace?
So many grievances. And yet, silence ensues.
When Indians express anger toward Pakistan, many Pakistanis act surprised. They are unable to understand why Indians harbour so much hatred for Pakistan (or they may be feigning ignorance). The answer lies in the reactions, the deafening silence that follows whenever India gets attacked. It’s easy to speak of peace and brotherhood when you’re not the one burying your loved ones. How many Indians, soldiers and civilians, Hindus and Muslims alike, have lost their lives to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? And yet, we’re expected to keep our borders open, welcome Pakistani artists, and pretend everything is normal. Most of these artists haven’t even spoken a word against the radicals who spill Indian blood. They want our money and admiration, while their country fuels terror against us.
Every time Kashmiris speak out against Pakistan or wave the Indian flag, Islamabad spins the same tired excuse: “They’re being forced by the Hindutva government.” Really? Was the Kashmiri Muslim man who died trying to save Hindu tourists in Pahalgam doing it under pressure from the Indian government? Make it make sense.
Pakistan is to India what Hamas is to Israel. Friendship is a fantasy. We may share history, but there’s no future unless Pakistan first cleans up the terrorism it breeds. Until then, no dialogue, no gesture, no cultural exchange can bridge this gap. The course correction has to begin on Pakistan’s side. Let Kashmir live in peace.
The following snippet is from a DEI study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in the U.S. The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, originally meant to raise awareness, appears to have backfired in some areas. By framing everything through an “oppressor vs. oppressed” lens, it has ended up vilifying the Hindu Brahmin community, similar to the Jewish community.
While DEI narratives often focus on Islamophobia and racial discrimination, caste-based bias among American Hindus has largely remained outside the spotlight. Though widely recognized in India, caste discrimination has only recently started gaining attention in the U.S., leading to the introduction of caste-sensitivity training in schools, workplaces, and policy discussions. But did they have the desired effect? Studies show otherwise.
The vilification of Brahmins began in India, where they are often targeted for everything, from their dietary habits to their lifestyle choices. What should have remained a focused activism against caste discrimination has unfortunately expanded into a broader mockery of the community as a whole. Even Brahmins who reject caste-based thinking are not spared.
Like anyone else, a Brahmin does not choose the caste they are born into. So, isn’t attacking them solely for their birth also a form of casteism? Every community should be open to critique for its flaws, but no one should be dehumanized for simply existing.
Awareness is important, but this study shows that excessive activism can cross a line and end up vilifying an entire community. In the findings, respondents described Brahmins as “parasites,” “viruses,” and “the devil personified.” How is that fair, or even acceptable, in the name of social justice?
CPM mentions this about Islamist groups in the draft resolution:
Hindu extremists are using radical Muslim groups as fodder to fuel hatred between communities. But the reverse is also true—radical Muslim groups exploit the political climate to spread their own agenda. They feed off each other.
One side claims, “If Islamists stop, Hindu extremism will die down.” The other side counters, “If Hindu extremists stop, Islamists will weaken.”
There’s no middle ground. How do we break this cycle? Who should compromise? The answer is—both.
The only way forward is to call out radical elements within your own community—those who discourage interfaith interactions, prevent you from celebrating others’ festivals, and push you away from the secular fabric of the country. Peaceful coexistence is the only solution.
However, I mostly see this self-criticism coming from the Hindu community. Not everyone supports right-wing politics, a Hindu Rashtra, or extremist activities, and many Hindus actively speak out against radicalism within their own circles. But the same level of criticism isn’t visible in other communities. At least 95% of the Muslims I know have never condemned extremism within their own community, but they are very vocal about Hindu extremism. If only one side is willing to challenge its radicals, how can we truly achieve peaceful coexistence in a secular, democratic nation like India?
I feel this silence comes from fear—fear of being ostracized by their own community. In Kerala, the Muslim League openly stated that the hijab is not a choice for Muslim women; it is mandatory. When a journalist asked, “What if someone doesn’t want to wear it?” the leader reaffirmed, “If she’s a Muslim, we advise her to wear it.” There was no room for choice. Yet, despite often advocating for personal freedom, there was no backlash from within the Muslim community against this statement. This silence is unsettling. It makes people wonder—“If they won’t even speak up for their own freedom of choice, how can we expect them to stand up for ours?”
India is a secular nation, and preserving this secularism requires protecting religious freedom. When prominent leaders impose strict regulations on women, silence is not an option—it is a time to question them and hold them accountable. If not now, then when? Waiting until things spiral out of control will only make it harder to reclaim lost freedoms.
You must be logged in to post a comment.