Hare Krishna.

After the release of The Kashmir Files, which depicted violence against Hindus, there was a strong backlash from some leftist scholars. One such scholar released a video claiming that due to the discriminatory caste system, Hinduism is the most violent religion in the world. Let’s examine this claim from four perspectives.

1. The Caste System: Acknowledging the Problem

Yes, the caste system in its current form is terrible. It has led to inhumane discrimination, and the way it functions today is certainly reprehensible. No one is defending the caste system as it stands. However, we must also differentiate between distortions of a tradition and its core teachings.

Let’s now consider three facts and one conclusion:

2. Who Were the Targets of This So-called Violence?

If Hinduism were truly the most violent religion, then the alleged targets—mainly the lower castes—should have been annihilated. That’s what we see with some of the most violent historical episodes involving other religions.

For instance:

  • When Catholicism spread through South America during colonization, civilizations like the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas were wiped out.

  • In North America, when Protestantism spread, Native Americans were nearly exterminated. Today, they form a tiny minority.

  • In the Middle East, ancient Mesopotamian civilizations no longer exist in any meaningful form.

In contrast, the so-called victims of Hinduism—lower caste communities—not only survived but continue to exist in large numbers in India. There was no religiously sanctioned genocide to wipe them out.

Now the argument shifts: “The violence wasn’t physical, it was spiritual. Their spirits were broken.”

That may be a fair concern. But now we’re changing the definition of violence to suit an agenda. Physical destruction is measurable. Spiritual or emotional suppression is subjective and far harder to quantify. If demoralizing someone were a legally punishable crime, our courts would be filled with such cases. But that’s not the standard definition of violence.

3. Why Didn’t People Leave Hinduism?

Hinduism was never a centralized, dogmatic religion. It was decentralized, diverse, and deeply diffused across Indian society. If the system was so inherently oppressive, why didn’t the lower castes leave en masse?

Yes, some converted to Buddhism and Jainism. Later, under Islamic rule, conversion happened—often through coercion. Christianity spread through allurements. And Leftist ideologies promised equality. Yet, even after all this, a large number of people chose to remain within Hinduism.

Why? If Hinduism was truly the most violent or oppressive, people had plenty of opportunity to leave. That many chose to stay indicates a more complex reality than the narrative of blanket oppression.

Also, remember: egalitarianism as we understand it today is a modern value. In the past, hierarchy was the norm across all societies:

  • In Europe: aristocrats, clergy, and serfs.

  • In China: Mandarins and peasants.

  • In Russia: nobles and serfs.

So why single out Hinduism?

4. Is Caste Discrimination Religious or Cultural?

Even among those who converted to Islam or Christianity, caste-based discrimination still exists. So, is this a Hindu problem or a human problem?

It appears that human beings tend to find some reason to discriminate. If not by caste, then by language, region, race, or class. Even among Muslims, Arab Muslims often look down upon South Asian Muslims. So it’s not always about religion; it’s about human nature.

Moreover, if we examine the core texts of Hinduism, caste is not defined by birth. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (4.13):

“Chatur-varnyam maya srishtam guna-karma-vibhagashah”
—I created the four varnas according to guna (qualities) and karma (work).

Caste was originally intended as a division of labor based on personal tendencies and social functionality—not a rigid birth-based hierarchy. What we see today is a distortion, not a representation of the original idea.

If people say, “Islam is a religion of peace, but extremists distort it”, then shouldn’t the same courtesy be extended to Hinduism? If casteism is a distortion, then why judge the whole religion by it?

5. The Bhakti Movement: A Tradition of Reform

The Bhakti movement is one of the greatest reform traditions in the world. It empowered people from all castes. Saints like Kabir, Ravidas, Tukaram, Chokhamela, and Namdev—many from lower castes—were revered as spiritual authorities.

It wasn’t Christian missionaries or Leftist ideologues who reformed caste injustice. Reform came from within Hinduism, led by Hindu saints and teachers. Why not acknowledge this?

Every religion accumulates accretions over time—layers that deviate from its core. But the beauty of Hinduism is that it reforms from within, and welcomes such reform.

6. The Irony: Freedom to Criticize Proves the Statement False

Let’s end with a striking irony.

If Hinduism were truly the most violent religion, would anyone even be allowed to say so publicly?

Would any scholar dare to make such a statement if they feared for their life?

The very fact that such criticism is made without fear of violent retribution proves that Hinduism is not violent. Truly violent ideologies do not allow dissent. They silence it—permanently.

So, such provocative statements are often more about sensationalism than scholarship. Real intellectual work is slow, nuanced, and balanced. Sensationalism is the cheap shortcut to fame.

In Conclusion:

Yes, the caste system in its current form is a deep wound. And yes, reform is essential—and is happening. But to label Hinduism as the most violent religion is not only unfair, it is factually and logically false.

Hinduism has always welcomed dialogue, inquiry, reform, and spiritual exploration. Let’s work for improvement, not demonization.
Let’s move toward understanding, not sensationalism.
Let’s respect truth, not push agendas.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.