Few ideas in Indian thought are as enduring, or as difficult, as dharma. It cannot be reduced to worship, doctrine, or membership of a religious community. It joins personal conduct with social duty, justice, compassion, and the preservation of life. Its meaning has never stayed fixed: across centuries it has been questioned, interpreted, challenged, and renewed. To trace that movement is to trace the ethical history of Indian civilisation itself.
The story begins in a world of exchange and migration. After about 1900 BCE, the urban system of the Indus civilisation had fragmented, and during the second millennium BCE, Indo-Iranian languages and related poetic and ritual traditions differentiated across Central and South Asia. These were processes of adaptation and local creativity, not a single migration into India. Mesopotamia, Assyria, Achaemenid Iran, and Vedic India formed overlapping but distinct cultural worlds.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, preserved in Sumerian and Akkadian traditions and surviving in Neo-Assyrian copies, explored immortality and concluded that death is inevitable, an insight that invites comparison with the Bhagavad Gita. Zoroastrianism placed moral choice, truth, and the struggle against falsehood at the centre of religious life, regarding fire as sacred. In South Asia, the Vedic corpus was composed and transmitted orally, drawing on Indo-Iranian inheritances while acquiring distinctive forms. By the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, Buddhism, Jainism, and the Ajivika tradition had emerged within the wider Shramana world, challenging inherited authority, criticising sacrifice and social hierarchy to varying degrees, and placing renewed emphasis on conduct, renunciation, non-violence, and liberation. Ethical debate, rather than passive uniformity, became a defining feature of the civilisation.
That questioning spirit was already present at the very beginning. The Nasadiya Sukta, the celebrated Hymn of Creation of the Rigveda, is remarkable for refusing an easy account of the universe's beginning: "Then there was neither non-being nor being; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky beyond. What covered it, and where? In whose protection? Was there a fathomless depth of water?" Wonder, doubt, and intellectual humility stand at the start of the Vedic quest. Indian thought did not begin with one final answer imposed for all time; it began with inquiry into existence, truth, order, and the unknown.
In the third century BCE, Emperor Ashoka turned that inquiry into public ethics. His dhamma, engraved on rocks and pillars across the subcontinent, from present-day India and Pakistan to Nepal and Afghanistan, encouraged restraint, respect between communities, compassion toward human beings and animals, and responsible government. It was neither a private creed nor a complete theological system but an ethic of coexistence expressed through public authority. The Mahabharata, taking shape over many centuries, participated in the same civilisational debate: how should human beings act when duties conflict, rules fail, and every choice carries moral cost? In the epic, dharma is not a rigid code with an automatic answer for every situation. It is subtle, contextual, and often discovered only through deliberation.
The distinction between dharma and religion matters here. In modern English, religion usually refers to belief, worship, sacred authority, ritual, and membership of a faith community. Dharma may include these dimensions, but its range is wider and varies with context. Derived from the Sanskrit root dhṛ, associated with holding or sustaining, it can mean moral order, social obligation, justice, right conduct, responsibility, and the principles that preserve life and society. A person's dharma is an obligation to align action with truth, responsibility, and the welfare of others. And when power, custom, or ritual causes cruelty, the claim that it represents dharma must itself be examined.
The epic gives this complexity dramatic form in the Yaksha-Prashna episode, where Yudhishthira must answer the Yaksha's questions to restore his apparently dead brothers. His responses suggest that dharma cannot be secured by argument, scripture, or custom alone; it also requires wisdom, self-command, and humane judgment. Two formulations sharpen the point: dharma is so called because it sustains, and non-cruelty, humane concern, is among its highest principles. Together they yield a practical understanding.
At the individual level, dharma requires self-control, truthfulness, and responsibility. At the social level, it requires duties that preserve trust and order. At the ethical level, it demands compassion, for rules emptied of empathy can become instruments of violence. At the contextual level, it recognises that texts and authorities may differ, and that judgment must respond to time, place, consequence, and human welfare. The ultimate question is therefore not only "Is this permitted?" but also "Does this action sustain life, protect dignity, and avoid needless cruelty?" Dharma, in this sense, is ethics joined to social responsibility, compassion, and awareness of circumstance.
Over time, philosophical reflection was joined by increasingly elaborate traditions of personal devotion, temple worship, ritual purity, mythology, and sacred imagery. A widely recited purification verse found in the Padma Purana invokes Pundarikaksha, the lotus-eyed Vishnu: whether impure or pure, or in whatever condition one may be, whoever remembers the lotus-eyed Lord becomes purified outwardly and inwardly. The verse moves from external condition toward inner transformation. Yet ritual purification fulfils its ethical purpose only when reflected in conduct; purity without compassion, or devotion without responsibility, risks becoming form without substance.
European thinkers drew a similar line between moral religion and empty observance. Immanuel Kant, in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, argued that authentic religion must be grounded in morality, and that when ritual, secret knowledge, miracle-seeking, or fear substitutes for ethical conduct, religion becomes servile or superstitious. His warning can be applied comparatively whenever ceremonial performance displaces moral responsibility. Images, rituals, mystical experience, and devotion need not be rejected; the issue is whether they deepen truthfulness and compassion or become instruments of manipulation and moral escape. Emile Durkheim, writing in 1912, treated religion as a social institution, a community united by shared beliefs and practices concerning the sacred. Dharma adds a further question: what quality of morality does that community sustain? Unity without justice can become conformity, and faith without compassion can become exclusion.
Across medieval India and the neighbouring Persianate world, saints and mystics carried philosophical thought into vernacular languages and everyday life. Gorakhnath and the Nath tradition emphasised disciplined practice; Basava challenged caste hierarchy and ritual privilege; Rumi's poetry described the dissolution of the ego in divine love; Kabir invoked Ram and Allah while attacking sectarianism and caste; and the Sikh Gurus joined devotion with equality, labour, and service. These traditions did not erase their differences, but they created powerful ethical conversations across religious boundaries.
Rumi's language of the effacement of the ego may be compared, carefully and without claiming identity, with non-dual currents of Vedanta. Kabir's devotion to a reality beyond attribute and sectarian possession made metaphysical insight answerable to social equality. The Guru Granth Sahib opens with the Mul Mantar, affirming one reality that is true, creative, fearless, without hatred, timeless, unborn, and self-existent. Sikhism is a distinct religious tradition, not an extension of Vedanta; the comparison shows rather how Indian civilisation repeatedly brought metaphysical unity into conversation with ethical equality and social responsibility.
In the nineteenth century, reformers used inherited texts and moral reasoning to confront entrenched social practices. Raja Rammohun Roy drew upon the Upanishads to defend monotheism, criticise idolatry, promote women's dignity, and campaign against sati. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, a formidable Sanskrit scholar and practical humanist, judged learning by its capacity to relieve suffering, and his work for women's education and widow remarriage turned scholarship into social action. The Prarthana Samaj, associated with figures such as Mahadev Govind Ranade, combined Brahmo influence with the devotional inheritance of Marathi saints, promoting education, widow remarriage, women's advancement, and opposition to caste discrimination. Reform did not require the abandonment of tradition; it required the courage to distinguish enduring ethical insight from inherited injustice.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Rama Tirtha then recast Vedantic ideas for a changing world. Accounts of Ramakrishna's practice across Hindu, Islamic, and Christian paths underpinned a lived pluralism, giving renewed force to the Rigvedic insight that reality is one, though the wise describe it in many ways. Vivekananda transformed non-dual philosophy into a call for service: if the divine dwells in every person, then serving the poor and the illiterate is service to the Divine manifested in the poor, and liberation pursued in indifference to social misery is incomplete.
Rama Tirtha emphasised inner freedom, courage, and self-reliance, encouraging individuals to overcome fear, weakness, and colonial subordination by recognising the dignity and strength within themselves. Moksha was not abandoned but brought into closer relationship with equality, compassion, service, and public life. Modern mystics, in their own way, challenged prevailing social ills, created alternative communities of devotion, and provided languages through which dignity and equality could be asserted.
This plural inheritance has continuing relevance in contemporary India. During the Supreme Court's Sabarimala reference hearing in May 2026, Justice B. V. Nagarathna observed that Hinduism is also described as a way of life, and that a person does not cease to be Hindu merely because he or she does not visit a temple or perform ritual. A useful metaphor, if employed with care, is that of a civilisational condominium.
Hindu dharma is not owned by one sect, region, scripture, language, caste, or mode of worship; it is a shared but internally diverse inheritance built from Vedic, Upanishadic, epic, Puranic, philosophical, devotional, folk, tribal, reformist, and regional traditions. Communities in India and Nepal, Hindu traditions in Bali and Sri Lanka, and the wider cultural imprint of Indian religions across South and Southeast Asia have all contributed to this civilisational field. Its diversity is not an accidental weakness but one of its constitutive strengths, for the tradition has repeatedly absorbed disagreement, created new syntheses, and allowed personal, impersonal, plural, and non-theistic approaches to coexist.
At the same time, Hinduism, Hindu dharma, and Hindutva must not be treated as interchangeable. Hinduism refers broadly to a diverse religious and civilisational tradition. Dharma names ethical, social, legal, and philosophical dimensions whose use extends beyond Hindu traditions. Hindutva is a modern political ideology concerned with Hindu identity and nationhood; it may draw upon Hindu symbols, but it is not coextensive with the full range of Hindu philosophy or practice.
A continuous question runs through all of this: does belief make human conduct more truthful, compassionate, and just? Religion provides symbols, narratives, communities, and forms of worship. Dharma judges how those forms are lived. Ritual may sanctify life, but it cannot replace moral responsibility. Identity may create belonging, but it cannot justify cruelty. The enduring test of dharma is whether it sustains life, protects dignity, restrains power, and enables human beings to live together without fear.
---
*Contact: guptapradeepkumar698@gmail.com
Comments