Secularism didn’t just arrive, gift-wrapped, on the doorstep of modern society. To get why it took root, we’ve got to step back into the world of George Jacob Holyoake, the father of Western secularism. Imagine living in a place where the church decided what you learned, how you lived, even how you thought. Holyoake, a working-class radical, wasn’t having it. The man was jailed for blasphemy, just for daring to question the rules.
Holyoake had been reading the likes of Locke and Mill, thinkers who insisted on classical liberty, tolerance, and individual rights. Honestly, he wanted space for reason and equality, a society where people could cooperate regardless of what they believed.
The world, scarred by wars and persecutions, saw the United Nations in 1948 declare that all humans have equal rights, whatever their belief. That Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It’s a global echo of Holyoake’s vision church and state, finally, in separate corners.
Sanatan philosophy, at its core, throws out this question: why should truth be a one-way street? It’s a worldview that sees divinity everywhere, in everyone, and refuses to put souls on a conveyor belt. Each path is respected; each journey unique. Even those who rejected Sanatan in pre-medieval era were tolerated.
It is perceived Western Secular Values create a Society full of Political and religious Neutrality, while Sanatan Philosophy is considered a spiritually neutral journey. It can shed light on political morality on tolerance, criticism and subjective freedom without requiring any formal separation from temple. While Sanatan Philosophy suffered reign of Abrahamic colonization, the difference with Western Philosophy is primarily cultural not about inclusivity.
The God of big hearts-No Blasphemy.
Sanatan philosophy, at its heart, has always thrived on dialogue. The idea was simple: nothing is above questioning. Sanatan Philosophical schools accepted Theistic, pagan and non-theistic schools. You could argue, disagree, or even reject the mainstream, and people would still listen. Take the Charvakas, for instance, those ancient Atheists from broader Sanatan family who didn’t buy into the soul or any afterlife. They weren’t banished or hunted down; instead, they were invited to debate.
Sanatan societies over centuries, became this melting pot where traders, settlers, and refugees from all sorts of backgrounds; like Jews escaping persecution, found a place to breathe. There were no blasphemy laws lurking in the shadows, no threats for changing your mind about faith. Apostasy wasn’t a crime; it was just another choice. A society where the spiritual and non-spiritual coexisted without fear.
Separation of Power, Gender Rights and LGBTQ+
Before Western philosophers even started mulling over separation of powers, the Sanatan system had already partially implemented it. Power was never meant to be a one-man show. If we read into the Yajnavalkya Smriti or peek at how Ashoka ran his empire, we’ll spot this neat separation of power. Legislative, executive, judiciary existed under the authority of the King. More of a ringmaster than an autocrat, With Ministers and officials making sure there was checks and balances. While Western Secularism have advanced the Separation of power, the ideals pre-existed.
Decentralization was woven into the very fabric of Sanatan philosophy. Let’s go back a thousand years, and we’ll find Indian villages operating with a sense of autonomy that would put some contemporary democracies to shame. Local Administrative councils (sabhas) were running the show, handling disputes, divvying up resources, and making sure the community functioned smoothly.
Take the Uttaramerur inscription, for example. It’s not just a dusty relic. This stone record spells out a system of self-governance in modern Tamil Nadu so detailed and advanced, you’d think it was drafted by a bunch of modern policy wonks. Officials were chosen carefully, decisions made collectively, power was always distributed.
Gender co-existence was an integral part of life. The figure of Ardhanarishvara, depicted as half Shiva, half Parvati serves as a profound symbol of the union and balance between masculine and feminine principles. This image inherently challenges the concept of rigid gender binaries.
Ancient Vedic texts not only reference influential female scholars and leaders but also explicitly acknowledge the existence of the tritiya prakriti, or third gender. This early recognition of non-binary and LGBTQ identities illustrates a broader, more inclusive worldview than is often assumed.
However, same-sex relationships were typically met with relatively minor consequences, such as small fines, ritual purification, or brief periods of penance. Rather than severe criminal penalties. While certain ancient legal texts, notably the Dharmashastras like Manusmriti, did prescribe punishments for homosexual acts, these measures were not broadly enforced at the level seen in many other empires of the same era. The overall approach tended to be less punitive in comparison to death penalties in Abrahamic scriptures.
Reforms in the Society
Sanatan philosophy has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for adaptation and reform, primarily through ongoing debate, reinterpretation, and responsiveness to changing cultural needs. A particularly illustrative example is Yājñavalkya. In contrast to the earlier Manusmriti, which largely excluded women from inheritance. Yājñavalkya explicitly recognized the rights of daughters, wives, mothers, and widows to inherit property, particularly in the absence of a son. Notably, he prioritized the wife and daughter as primary heirs when a man died without a son and ensured that the mother would receive an equal share alongside the sons following the father’s death. These reforms during ancient times paved the path towards modern egalitarian societies.
Sanatan Philosophy’s tradition of reform allows governance and rule of law to evolve naturally. Since there was never a rigid church-state divide, reforms can reflect local culture and human rights needs rather than mimic foreign models. Diversity is the foundation of unity in Sanatan thought, enabling laws and governance to adapt through debate and consensus, ensuring justice and progress while standing strong against Terrorism.
Veer Savarkar’s assertion, “Change is the law of life. Those who resist reform, resist progress. The Smritis and Shastras must be interpreted in the light of reason and the needs of the time,” highlights the necessity of adapting traditional frameworks to contemporary realities.
S M Faiyaz Hossain is a Bengali columnist and political commentator. His academic research focuses on business and supply chain management, and he is currently residing in Australia. He has authored and co-authored research journals and conference proceedings. Additionally, he has written several columns and opinion editorials for various news outlets, focusing on Philosophy, business, geopolitics, and counter-extremism. He tweets at @FaiyazBengali
