Hindu Studies as an academic discipline is fast gaining traction. Surprisingly, until 2021, Hindu Studies was not taught in Bharat, while courses for study of other religions and belief systems had been running for long. Banaras Hindu University (BHU) started offering MA in Hindu Studies in 2021, and today over a dozen universities are offering this course.
One of the organizations that played a seminal role in getting Hindu Studies added to Bharatiya academia is Hindu Education Board (HEB). Recently, HEB along with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University (BAOU) organized a faculty training workshop on Hindu Studies at the BAOU campus in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. This intensive 5-day workshop was attended by academics and scholars from all over Bharat.
Here is a brief summary of the proceedings, generated with help of AI, based on the notes taken by an attendee.
The Hindu Studies training workshop was a deep exploration of the foundational concepts, history, methods, and challenges facing Bharatiya civilization, persistently emphasizing the unique character of its jñāna-paramparā (knowledge tradition) in contrast to externally imposed Western categories. The workshop opened with the recognition that Bharat stands for a civilizational ekatva-meva anekāntatvena (unity-in-diversity)—the intuition that diversity is a vibrant manifestation of a deeper, unifying reality, not a source of conflict. This foundational spirit of spiritual democracy empowers innumerable mārga (paths), sampradāya (traditions), and worldviews, all rooted in the quest for satya (truth) and ānanda (bliss) while remaining respectful of each other.
Hindu Dharma is not a rigid code or mere religiosity but is an evolving, living jñāna-paramparā that impels each individual to perform kartavya (duties) with deep awareness. Unlike rights-centric cultures, Bharatiya thought is duty-bound, fostering responsibility towards the family, society, nature, and the divine, grounded in the sacredness of all existence. The world is not to be dominated or consumed but realized as Ishavāsyam idam sarvam—pervaded by the divine. This view stands opposed to the prevailing bhogavāda (consumerist) and anthropocentric ethos in the West.
A constant refrain was the rigour and openness of Bharatiya epistemology, expressed through the doctrine of pramāṇa (means of valid knowledge). Participants learned the traditional list of six pramāṇas: pratyakṣa (perception), anumāna (inference), upamāna (analogy), śabda (verbal testimony), arthāpatti (postulation/inference to the best explanation), and anupalabdhi (non-perception/negative proof). Some schools, particularly in fields like mathematics and astronomy, added yukti (reasoned ingenuity or logical construction) as a crucial pramāṇa, exemplified by the works of Madhava of Kerala, who combined geometry and algebra to generate infinite series, and by artisans who relied on yukti in metallurgy and perfumery. Other pramāṇas discussed included aitihya (historical tradition) and sambhava (probabilistic supposition), reflecting the practical extension found in the applied sciences of Bharat. These nine ways of knowing were debated as the most comprehensive framework, each enabling the seeker to discriminate between true and false knowledge.
Central to Bharatiya logic was the stress on precision—lakṣaṇa (defining property), avyāpti (under-definition), ativyāpti (over-inclusion), and their use in nyāya (logic) to delineate categories sharply, such as distinguishing the unique properties of a go (cow). The careful tradition of sutra (concise aphorism), bhāṣya (expanded commentary), vārttika (critical exegesis), ṭīkā (word-by-word commentary), and tippaṇī (marginal notes) was traced as uniquely Bharatiya—a tradition born not of dogma but of dialogical, open inquiry. Even śāstra (texts of knowledge) are not “sacred texts” in a Western sense; they invite questioning, and their authority derives ultimately from direct experience and rational debate. The preservation and creative expansion of knowledge utilized the anubandha chatuṣṭaya—assessment of adhikārī (qualified student), viṣaya (subject), sambandha (relation), and prayojana (purpose)—a universal framework underlying classical and even contemporary research methods.
Throughout the workshop, the relationship between tradition and modern, imported frameworks was relentlessly scrutinized. Participants critiqued how colonial administrators, missionaries, and modern social theorists (from Marxists to post-modernists) sought to fragment Bharatiya knowledge, imposing their categories—caste, race, patriarchy, social conflict, and more—while misreading or deliberately distorting indigenous logic, values, and narratives. For instance, the varṇa-jāti system in pre-modern Bharat functioned as a fluid, merit-and-action-based order shaped by guṇa (inherent quality) and karma (deed), not static hierarchy. Many so-called “lower castes” were historically skilled wealth producers, and the term “Dalit” was shown to have originated in colonial discourse and subsequent urban politics, not in śāstra. The imposition and solidification of “caste” as a rigid, birth-based system was revealed as part of the colonial project, paralleling European obsessions with blood purity and class.
The workshop critically examined Cultural Marxism and Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, highlighting their influence on Bharat’s academic and social institutions. Gramsci argued that ruling classes can maintain dominance not just through economic power but by securing intellectual and moral leadership, embedding their worldview into education, media, and culture to gain voluntary consent. This subtle domination reshapes perceptions and undermines traditional Bharatiya structures like family, dharmic institutions, and language, facilitating ideological control. Gramsci’s prescriptions—combining force (coercion) and consent (ideological control)—were seen as being realized through the contemporary emphasis on identity politics, the incessant questioning of longstanding customs, and the reinterpretation or erasure of indigenous frameworks in curricula and media. Participants viewed this as a strategic cultural revolution weakening Bharatiya cohesion and urged reclaiming indigenous knowledge to resist both overt and cultural colonization.
The status of women was also compared across civilizations. While the West, drawing on Greco-Roman and Abrahamic roots, often viewed women as inferior or even as the origin of sin, Bharatiya civilization venerates the feminine as the primordial creative force, Śakti. Stories of Sītā, Draupadī, Ahalyā, Satyavatī, and other women of itihāsa (epic) and Purāṇa (traditional lore) celebrated women’s autonomy and capacity for decisive action. The mother is exalted far above even the guru or the father, with punishing crimes against women given highest priority in law. Deviations from this ideal were historical aberrations, rather than intrinsic to the culture.
The workshop also candidly addressed emerging issues, such as Queer Theory and the “gender binary.” The inclusive grammar of Bharat—with strī-liṅga (feminine), puṃ-liṅga (masculine), and napuṃsaka-liṅga (neuter)—was contrasted with Western binary concepts, and it was noted that non-mainstream sexual identities were never criminalized in Bharat until Mughal and British legal codes imposed such definitions. Today, Western social trends, medical interventions, and legal changes, often driven by corporate and ideological interests, are reshaping social understandings about gender & sexuality globally, including in Bharat.
A deeper reflection was offered on the concept of Hindutva (best rendered as “Hinduity,” the essence of Hindu being). Just as “Christianity” denotes the essence of being Christian, so Hindutva is not a political ideology but the distilled tattva (core principle) of Hindu Dharma, shared by Vaidika, Jaina, Bauddha, and Sikh paramparās—unified by the pursuit of direct experience-based knowledge and openness to dialogue. The ultimate teaching of the Upaniṣads—ekameva advitīyam (one, without a second)—demonstrates that ekatmatā (unity) is not homogeneity but a harmonious ground underlying infinite diversity. The spirit of anekāntavāda (doctrine of many-sidedness, rooted in Jaina thought) further ensures humility and acceptance of multiple valid perspectives.
Finally, participants reflected on the profound importance of language as a carrier of samskāra (culture). Translations often fail to fully embody the connotations of terms like nyāya, prem, pati-patnī, and śānti, calling for increased linguistic consciousness when addressing the world or translating Bharatiya categories for others.
The overarching message of the workshop was a clarion call for svatantrya (agency): to revive and reform Bharatiya jñāna-paramparā by embracing its critical, debate-oriented, and experiential foundation; to remain open to global conversation, but not at the expense of adhyātma (inner wisdom); and to consciously reject both external slander and internal complacency. Only so, participants were reminded, can Bharat recover its intellectual sovereignty and guide the world with its own authentic, plural, and ever-renewing lights.
