Hinduism Is Not a Religion. It’s the DNA of a Continent

Every Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi is either a Hindu or a former Hindu. The statement may sound provocative, but it is anthropologically, linguistically, and genetically true. The peoples of the subcontinent—whatever religion they now profess—descend from the same civilizational river that flowed through the Indus, Ganga, and Godavari basins. Their gods have changed, but their gestures have not. Their languages have changed scripts, but not their rhythm. Their prayers may now begin in Arabic or Persian, but their food, family, festivals, and facial expressions remain unmistakably Indic. Strip away the politics and what remains is civilizational DNA.

The word Hindu itself was never originally a theological label. It was a geographical and cultural identity, coined by the Persians to refer to the people east of the Sindhu River—the Hindus. The Greeks borrowed it as Indos, the Romans as India. Thus the terms Hindu and Indian are etymological twins. A Hindu was simply a native of India, long before any modern religion existed. To be Hindu was to belong to a civilization, not to profess a creed. The later emergence of “Hinduism” as a religion was an accident of colonial taxonomy, an attempt by European scholars to categorize an unbroken way of life into something resembling the Abrahamic religions they knew. But Hinduism was not built on revelation, prophet, or book—it was built on civilization, reason, and habit.

This is why religion in the subcontinent has always been a thin garment over a thick body of shared civilization. When Islam arrived, it did not bring new soil; it merely sowed new names in old earth. The converts who became Indian Muslims did not suddenly erase millennia of Hindu ancestry. They continued to eat rice, curry, lentils, and ghee; they married within clans; they celebrated the monsoon and feared eclipses; they sang songs about rain and love that were indistinguishable from those of their Hindu neighbors. Only the object of worship changed—the civilizational reflexes remained intact.

This is also true of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Strip away their religious identities and the cultural skeleton re-emerges unmistakably Hindu. The shared genetic substratum—what population scientists call the ANI-ASI admixture—predates every imported faith. The partition of 1947 may have created separate flags, but not separate civilizations. Lahore and Delhi share the same poetry, the same cuisine, the same sense of honor and shame. Dhaka and Kolkata share the same language, the same folk songs, the same rhythm of festivals. Islam, Christianity, Marxism, or secularism—these are outer garments. The body underneath remains Hindu, civilizationally if not confessionally.

To call Hinduism a civilization, therefore, is not a poetic exaggeration but an empirical description. It is a living continuum of languages, rituals, philosophies, and social codes that stretch back five thousand years. It has absorbed every invasion, translated every idea, and adapted every foreign influence without ever losing its civilizational center of gravity. When Islam came, Hindu civilization absorbed it and produced Bhakti-Sufi syncretism. When Christianity came, it absorbed it and produced Brahmo and Ramakrishna movements. When Marxism came, it was digested and rearticulated in the moral vocabulary of karma, dharma, and class. A religion that can swallow both Shankara and Marx is not a sect—it is a civilization.

That is why conversion in South Asia is never total. Theologically one may shift allegiance, but culturally one never escapes the gravitational pull of the civilization that made you. A Hindu may become a Christian, but Christmas will still look suspiciously like Diwali—with lights, sweets, and the same obsession with auspiciousness. A Muslim may pray toward Mecca, but the call to prayer will still sound in a raga older than Islam. Even the most secular Indian intellectual retains the reflexes of Hindu reasoning—cyclical time, moral causality, tolerance of contradiction, and an instinctive sense of unity in multiplicity. Civilization survives where religion dies.

Modern South Asia is thus a paradox: millions who reject Hinduism still live inside its mental architecture. Pakistani nationalists who claim descent from Arabia still speak languages descended from Sanskrit and write ghazals full of Krishna-like longing. Bangladeshi Islamists who denounce idol worship still celebrate Pahela Baishakh, the Bengali New Year, with rituals older than the Quran. Indian Marxists who denounce religion still use dialectical reasoning that sounds like Shankara debating with Buddhists. Everyone carries the civilizational code, even while denying it.

This is why the term “post-Hindu” is meaningless. There is no “post” to a civilization that continues to define your thought, diet, family, and vocabulary. One can leave the temple, but one cannot leave the time zone. Hinduism is not a set of beliefs—it is a way of being human in the subcontinent. It defines how you greet your elders, how you cook your food, how you organize your family, how you mourn your dead. It is embedded in language itself—every pronoun and verb conjugation expresses hierarchy, respect, and relational ethics inherited from Sanskrit. Even the atheists of India think in Sanskritic categories: karma without gods, dharma without priests, moksha without heaven.

That is why to call Hinduism merely a “religion” is to trivialize it. It is not the Indian version of Christianity or Islam—it is the civilizational infrastructure that produced Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and a thousand sects without breaking its unity. The Abrahamic mind divides by doctrine; the Hindu mind multiplies by synthesis. Europe was converted by theology; India was converted only by empire. The civilization remained, outliving the creeds that tried to domesticate it. Hinduism, in that sense, is the longest continuous civilization still alive—older than Egypt, broader than Greece, and more internally plural than any other.

This is also why Hindu civilization outlasts every conqueror. The Mughals ruled India for centuries, but their descendants eat mango pickles and wear bindis. The British ruled for two hundred years, but left speaking English with Indian syntax and sensibility. The secular elites of modern India may ridicule religion, but they live in Hindu time—marrying at astrologically chosen moments, consulting palm readers, and organizing their political calendars around festivals. Civilization has a way of reincarnating itself even in those who deny it.

When one says that every Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi is either a Hindu or a former Hindu, it is not an insult; it is an anthropological diagnosis. It is the recognition that civilizations outlive religions. The theological identities of South Asia—Muslim, Christian, Marxist, secular—are surface expressions of a deeper unity. The real identity of the subcontinent is Hindu, not in the narrow sense of temple rituals, but in the civilizational sense of shared ancestry, shared sensibility, and shared modes of thought. One may leave one’s gods, but one cannot leave one’s civilization.

The tragedy of modern India is that it forgot this truth. It allowed itself to be defined by colonial categories that divided the civilizational self into religious boxes. The British called one group “Hindus,” another “Muslims,” another “Christians,” and another “tribals,” as if these were separate species rather than branches of the same tree. This census logic, born in the bureaucratic mind of empire, created the illusion of difference. It turned neighbors into theological strangers and made civilization appear as sect. The colonial project needed categories to govern; it did not understand continuity. And so Hindu civilization, which had always defined itself by culture, was suddenly told to define itself by belief.

That epistemological violence continues today. To call oneself “Hindu” in public is now treated as a political act rather than a civilizational statement. The word has been hijacked by political movements and disowned by intellectuals, as though the civilization that built the subcontinent were a partisan ideology. This self-division is the deepest colonial wound: the separation of Indians from their civilizational identity. Pakistan institutionalized it through the two-nation theory; India internalized it through the fear of majoritarian guilt. Both became mirror images—one denying the Hindu body to preserve Islamic theology, the other denying Hindu continuity to preserve secular virtue.

But history is not fooled. Civilizations do not disappear because constitutions pretend they are equal among religions. They persist beneath the skin of nations, resurfacing whenever crisis demands memory. When Pakistan bans Sanskrit, it still names its missiles after Vedic gods: Prithvi, Agni, and Surya. When Bangladesh fights floods, it invokes the goddess Ganga in folk songs. When Indian atheists defend free thought, they cite the Buddha or Charvaka, both born within the Hindu world. Even those who hate Hinduism still think in its categories. Civilization is the water in which all South Asians swim, even when they curse the river.

This is why the concept of “Hindu nationalism” is philosophically mistaken. One cannot nationalize a civilization that predates the idea of nation. Hinduism is not Indian nationalism; it is Indian nature. To reduce it to politics is like reducing sunlight to electricity—useful, perhaps, but impoverishing. The Vedas and Upanishads were not composed for a nation-state; they were composed for humanity’s encounter with existence. Their authors were not patriots; they were philosophers. The problem with modern India is not that it has too much Hinduism, but that it has too little civilizational memory of it.

Every civilization that survives learns to distinguish between its religion and its culture. The West learned this after the Enlightenment: Europe abandoned the Church but retained Christendom’s moral architecture. China learned it after the Cultural Revolution: it denounced Confucius but returned to Confucian order. Japan industrialized without ceasing to be Shinto in sensibility. Only India was convinced that to be modern one must amputate oneself from one’s civilizational body. The result is a schizophrenia that has lasted seventy-five years—Hindus ashamed of being Hindu, Muslims afraid of being Indian, and secularists allergic to both.

Yet the civilizational current continues to flow underneath the noise. When a Tamil atheist invokes “karma” in daily conversation, he is speaking Sanskrit without knowing it. When a Pakistani poet compares the beloved’s face to the moon, he is echoing Kalidasa. When a Bangladeshi village lights lamps during harvest, it is performing an act older than Islam or Christianity. Civilization survives through habits that outlast ideologies. The Indic mind, trained over millennia to see multiplicity as truth, will outlive every imported binary of believer and infidel, left and right, East and West.

To recognize Hinduism as a civilization is also to liberate it from narrow identity politics. It is to see it not as a club of believers but as the world’s oldest experiment in pluralism. Hindu civilization gave the planet the idea of intellectual hospitality: that truth can wear many faces without contradiction. It produced skeptics like Charvaka, materialists like Ajita Kesakambali, monists like Shankara, dualists like Madhva, and dialecticians like Nagarjuna—all arguing fiercely under one civilizational roof. No civilization in history has tolerated such range of thought without collapsing. That is why Hinduism is a civilizational umbrella, not a doctrinal tent.

It also explains why Hindu civilization could generate non-theistic revolutions like Buddhism and Jainism without disintegrating. A religion would have declared them heresies; a civilization absorbed them as new species in its garden. The soil of India allowed the Buddha to reject the Vedas and still remain within the civilizational conversation. It allowed Mahavira to preach asceticism and still be honored as a son of the soil. This ability to house both the metaphysical and the atheistic within one frame is what defines Hinduism’s civilizational genius. That is why it has outlived every empire and every orthodoxy that came to destroy it.

Even the modern ideologies that sought to replace religion—Marxism, secularism, socialism—could not escape its gravity. Indian communists spoke of class struggle in the moral tones of karma; Indian secularists practiced tolerance as if it were a dharma. The dialectical materialism of Marx found a strange harmony with the dialectical metaphysics of the Buddha. The Indian mind translated every imported doctrine into its own civilizational idiom, transforming foreign ideas into Indic hybrids. Thus, Hindu civilization is not a closed system but a universal solvent: everything dissolves in it without losing its essence.

The time has come, therefore, to reclaim the word Hindu from both fundamentalists and skeptics, and restore it to its original meaning—a civilizational identity, not a sectarian badge. It is the name of a people who built cities before Rome, composed philosophies before Aristotle, and practiced democracy in village councils before Europe discovered parliament. It is the civilization that invented zero and pluralism in the same breath, that measured the cosmos and the conscience with equal precision. It is not a tribe, not a church, not a dogma—but a civilization that outlasted its own religions.

To say “I am Hindu” in that sense is to say: I belong to the civilization that taught the world how to argue without killing. It is to affirm an identity larger than nation, broader than belief, deeper than politics. It is to claim kinship with every South Asian—Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Marxist—because all are children of the same civilizational womb. You can leave the temple but not the time zone; you can change your religion but not your civilization. The Sindhu still flows beneath our blood.

The irony of the modern subcontinent is that everyone fights over what it means to be Hindu, while the civilization itself quietly endures in everyone’s daily life. A Pakistani family breaking a coconut before a new business, a Bangladeshi housewife drawing an alpona before a wedding, an Indian communist lighting a lamp on Diwali—all are performing acts that no scripture commands but civilization remembers. A billion small gestures, unconscious and unbroken, link every South Asian to that ancient continuum. It is not religion that keeps them united; it is habit, rhythm, and memory.

That continuity is what the colonial and postcolonial elites could never understand. They imagined civilization as something written in books, to be interpreted by scholars and priests. But civilizations live not in texts but in reflexes—in how people cook, speak, greet, and grieve. Hindu civilization is encoded in posture, not in doctrine. It teaches by imitation, not by command. Its scriptures are secondary to its gestures, its theology subordinate to its anthropology. This is why it cannot be eradicated by conversion or politics: you cannot convert away from how you sit, how you eat, or how you think about time. Civilization outlasts belief because it is older than belief.

The proof of this continuity lies in language. Every tongue of the subcontinent—from Sindhi to Sinhalese, from Bengali to Marathi—carries Sanskritic imprints. Even Urdu, supposedly the Islamic language of India, is half-Sanskrit in syntax and idiom. The very grammar of South Asian thought is Hindu, regardless of what words are spoken. Every expression of politeness, every mode of address, every turn of phrase reflects a civilization that predated all its religions. Even when one says Inshallah, one says it with Indic inflection; the breath is Hindu even when the words are Arabic.

Hindu civilization also survives in its metaphysical reflexes. South Asians instinctively believe that the world is cyclical, that actions have consequences, and that truth can wear many faces. These are not theological opinions but civilizational axioms, as natural as gravity to those born in its orbit. No matter how Westernized or secularized the Indian elite becomes, it cannot stop seeing the universe as an endless web of cause and effect. This worldview—moral, causal, and cyclical—defines the Hindu civilizational grammar. It is why the subcontinent could absorb the linear eschatology of Islam and Christianity without losing its sense of eternal recurrence.

This is also why the real conflict in South Asia is not between religions but between civilizational self-knowledge and self-alienation. The tragedy of Pakistan is not its Islam but its denial of its Hindu past; the tragedy of India is not its Hinduism but its inability to define it civilizationally. Bangladesh, which began as the rebellion of Bengali culture against Arabized theocracy, remains torn between its ancestral music and imported moralism. All three are fragments of the same civilizational mirror, each reflecting and denying the other. The way forward is not more religion but more civilizational honesty.

To say “Hinduism is a civilization” is to remind a billion people that they belong to the same story. It is to cut through the colonial categories that divide them into theological tribes. It is to recognize that the Indus, the Ganga, and the Brahmaputra do not flow in separate heavens; they flow through one geography and one memory. The civilizations of the world—Greek, Roman, Persian, Chinese—have all perished as living realities. Only the Hindu civilization continues to produce new languages, new philosophies, and new arts on the same soil that first invented them. A civilization that survives its own religions is immortal.

The word “Hindu” must therefore be rescued from small minds. It does not belong to those who shout it in hatred or those who flee from it in embarrassment. It belongs to the civilization that produced both atheism and devotion, both logic and poetry, both the Buddha and the Gita, both the Charvaka and the Shankara. The true Hindu is not the one who worships a god, but the one who sees divinity in every question, every contradiction, every act of thought. The true Hindu civilization is not the one that builds temples but the one that builds tolerance for intellectual difference.

To recover Hindu civilization is not to impose uniformity but to rediscover unity. It is to understand that the Muslim of Lahore, the Christian of Kerala, the Buddhist of Sri Lanka, and the Marxist of Bengal are all branches of one civilizational tree. It is to replace the politics of theology with the politics of memory. It is to say: before you were Muslim, Christian, or atheist, you were Hindu in language, culture, and ancestry. Your religion is your shirt; your civilization is your skin.

The future of the subcontinent depends on whether it can awaken to this truth. Civilizational unity does not mean religious conformity. It means recognizing the shared inheritance that underlies diversity. The moment South Asians stop defining themselves as fragments of theology and begin to see themselves as heirs of a single civilization, the endless wars of identity will end. The day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh realize they are all children of the same mother, the same river, the same civilization, they will no longer need to kill each other to prove who they are.

Civilization, not nationalism, is the final home of belonging. Religions may divide, nations may collapse, but civilizations reincarnate. Hinduism has done so for five thousand years and will continue to do so as long as the Sindhu flows. Every South Asian carries that river inside them—the same DNA, the same tongue, the same civilizational pulse. You can rename yourself, relocate your loyalties, rewrite your history, but the truth remains beneath the skin: you are Hindu, even if you call yourself something else.

That is not chauvinism; it is anthropology. It is not triumphalism; it is continuity. Hinduism is the world’s last living ancient civilization—still thinking, still breathing, still arguing. It is the civilization that survived its own religions, its conquerors, and its critics. It is the civilization that refuses to die, because it lives in the very people who deny it.

Citations 

1. Reich, David et al. “Reconstructing Indian Population History.” Nature 461, no. 7263 (2009): 489–494.
2. Narasimhan, Vagheesh et al. “The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia.” Science 365, no. 6457 (2019): eaat7487.
3. Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History. Oxford University Press, 2000.
4. Pollock, Sheldon. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. University of California Press, 2006.
5. Trautmann, Thomas. Aryans and British India. University of California Press, 1997.
6. Basham, A.L. The Wonder That Was India. Grove Press, 1959.
7. Kulke, Hermann, and Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. Routledge, 2016.
8. Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. State University of New York Press, 1988.
9. Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. Penguin, 2009.
10. Sharma, Arvind. Hinduism as a Missionary Religion. SUNY Press, 2011.

–757–