Savio
Saldanha SJ
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18089130
Date – 29-12-2025
As I
write this article, I am feeling deeply hurt and saddened by the violence
against the Christian community in India during the Christmas season. My
personal and spiritual philosophy has always been that I am a Christian by
religion, Hindu by culture, and opposed to all fundamentalism: this triple
self-description grows out of a concrete Maharashtrian childhood, a Dalit‑Bahujan–sensitive
reading of Indian history, and a Catholic theological conscience formed in
dialogue with the contemporary magisterium and my Jesuit formation with its
rich Ignatian spirituality. In writing this essay, I will make use of three
primary thought processes: Savarkar’s Hindutva, Tharoor’s “political Hinduism,”
and Kancha Ilaiah’s indictment of Brahminism, in order to discern a way of
belonging that is faithful to Christ, grateful to Hindu culture, and resistant
to militant ideologies in every religion. In retrospect this article can be considered
as a continuation of my previous essay on the related topic, ‘At the Crossroads between Ashram and Church: Living Christianity in India’ (5th
December 2025).
Every
Christian festival (Easter and Christmas) bring with them fresh editorials and
newspaper/journal articles from leading Christian thinkers and clergy
describing how we are Indians. I will not dwell on this topic because my ‘Indian-ness’
is ingrained in my identity as a person. I do not feel the need to prove it to
anyone, especially to the progeny of those who have historically supported the
colonial powers from being clerks in the Mughal courts to being British spies
and confidants. Ironically these are the same who are claiming to be proponents
of the Hindutva ideology today! As I stand on this crossroads of conscience, I
intend to address this topic with clear mind and speak out about the anguish
which is being felt by many individuals of the minority community in India
today.
My Maharashtrian childhood
Growing
up in coastal Maharashtra, religious difference was not a problem to be solved
but a rhythm of everyday life. For me the Ganpati aarti in the neighbour’s
house and being an Altar server during Mass in the parish were not rival
loyalties; they were two grammars in which the same mystery of God,
neighbour and cosmos could be honoured. Among the several Christian
inculturation of practices like the aartis and bhajans
(devotional songs), the smell of agarbatti (incense-sticks), women wearing traditional
sarees and mangalsutra during the wedding ceremony, and a culture that regarded
marital fidelity as non‑negotiable, shaped my moral imagination as much as the
Catechism.
This
porous world meant that practicing “Christianity” was never a clean
break from “Hindu culture” into a sealed Christian ghetto. As Shashi
Tharoor notes, Hindu practice in India is often lived as an open, capacious “way
of life,” in which multiple paths, rituals and even deities co‑exist
without sharp boundaries. That cultural ‘Hindu-ness’ seeped into
Christianity through the inculturation methods adopted by the early
missionaries with an intention to make Christianity rooted in the Indian soul
than a western imposition.
Why I remain Christian
Within
this inculturated environment, Christianity became the place where my
conscience learned to name grace, sin, cross and resurrection. The figure of
Jesus — crucified, son of a poor carpenter, worker, forgiving his enemies,
refusing violence — offered a concrete face to what Indian philosophy called satya
(Truth) and ahimsa (non-violence). The Church’s sacramental life gave
language to experiences of forgiveness and vocation that were more than generic
“spirituality”. Indeed, Christianity
shaped the ethical and moral concepts into more logical and concrete examples
and thus offered a fulfilling way of life.
The
Catholic Magisterium has explicitly encouraged such inculturation. Vatican II’s
Ad Gentes and Gaudium et Spes invite local Churches to assume “the
treasures of the nations” as “an offering to God,” not as a threat
to the Gospel. Pope John Paul II at Pope Benedict XVI in their teaching on
interreligious dialogue affirm that the Spirit is at work in other religiosity,
while insisting that Christ remains the definitive revelation. So “Christian by
religion, Hindu by culture” is not an inner contradiction but a Catholic way of
being Indian: Sacramentally rooted in Christ, historically and culturally
rooted in the Ganga‑Godavari civilisational world.
Hindu by culture: Phule, Shahu, Ambedkar
When
I say I found satisfaction in certain spiritual and cultural practices of
Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, I mean the ones which have been properly
discerned for their potential to help me grow holistically as a human being. It
is not a blind adherence to their exotic nature. Maharashtrian Hindu culture
has never come to me “raw.” It has always reached me already questioned, re‑read
and re‑imagined through the perspectives of great social and religious
reformers like Phule, Shahu, Ambedkar and Prabodhankar.
Phule: re‑reading myth from below
Mahatma
Jyotiba Phule treated Brahminical stories not as innocent spirituality but as
political tools. He accepted the Aryan‑invasion frame only to invert its moral
logic: if Aryan Brahmins came from outside, they were not noble bearers of
civilisation but conquerors who subdued indigenous Bahujan peoples and
then sanctified domination as “dharma.” In Gulamgiri and
related writings he re‑reads Bali Raja, Vamana, Ram and other figures from the
standpoint of Śūdra‑Atiśūdra peasants, presenting Bali as a just Shudra king
whose welfare rule was overthrown by Brahminical treachery. This
reinterpretation of Ramayana‑type myths does two things.
- It exposes how “Hindu dharma” and Purāṇic stories have been used to
sacralise hierarchy of casteism, making upper‑caste rule look divine and
Bahujan resistance look demonic.
- It creates a counter‑memory in which village deities like Khandoba
or Vithoba are re‑located under Bali Raja’s rule, giving Dalit‑Bahujans a
theologically honoured place inside “Hindu” culture rather than outside
it.
So
when I say Maharashtrian Hindu culture, I am not speaking of a soft,
Brahminical folklore; rather I am speaking of a culture where stories of Bali,
Khandoba and Sant‑traditions (saints) already carry Phule’s suspicion of
caste power.
Shahu: showing caste as material structure
Rajarshi
Shahu Maharaj translated this cultural critique into a state policy. As ruler
of Kolhapur he made primary education compulsory and free for all, set up
hostels for non‑Brahmin and Dalit students, and founded institutions like the
Maratha Students’ Institute. In 1902 he introduced 50% reservation in state
jobs and education for “backward” and non‑Brahmin castes, directly cutting into
Brahmin monopolies. By appointing non‑Brahmins as priests and opening Vedic/Sanskrit
schools to all castes, Shahu attacked the idea that caste was simply a
spiritual order.
He
showed that “varṇa” (caste-system) translated in practice into control
over land, offices, schools and temples, and that only structural interventions
(quotas, scholarships, appointments) could break that hold. In other words,
caste is not just a “state of soul” to be purified by piety; it is an economic
and political system that allocates opportunities and honours according to
birth. This is the atmosphere in which I grew up: reservations, non‑Brahmin
political assertion, and everyday conversations about “Brahmin supremacy” and
“Bahujan upliftment” were part of what “Hindu culture” meant in Maharashtra.
Ambedkar: breaking with Manusmriti, choosing an Indian
alternative
Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar takes Phule’s and Shahu’s questions right into the heart of
Hindu śāstra. In his writings on Manusmriti he argues that
Manu is not just an old text but a living mindset that has legitimised a rigid,
birth‑based hierarchy between Brahmin and Shudra, between men and women. He
shows how Manusmriti institutionalised unequal punishments,
excommunication, and control over education and property, making caste both
religiously “sacred” and socially inescapable.
Finding
Hindu attempts at reform insufficient, Ambedkar finally concluded that the
struggle for equality required a religious break. In 1956, leading a mass
conversion to Buddhism at Nagpur, he presented Buddhism not as Westernisation
but as a return to an indigenous, non‑Brahminical, śramaṇa tradition
that rejected authority of the Vedas and of Manu. For him, embracing Buddhism
was a way to reclaim dignity, fraternity and rational morality without
remaining under scriptures that canonised graded inequality. So “leaving Hinduism”
for many Dalit‑Bahujans was a quest for an Indian, not foreign, path to dignity
is exactly in line with Ambedkar’s intention.
Kancha Ilaiah: Hinduism as an internal struggle
Ilaiah’s
basic claim is that what is called “Hinduism” is already a contested terrain. On
one side stand Brahmin–Bania–neo‑Kshatriya gods, scriptures and rituals, which
justify caste hierarchy and keep Dalit‑Bahujans at the bottom. On the other
side stand Dalit‑Bahujan goddesses, gods, stories and practices, which have
their own logic and were never really accepted or respected by upper castes. So
there is no single “Hindu culture” that naturally belongs to everyone;
there are at least two religious-cultural formations living uneasily under that
label.
Dalit‑Bahujan deities: production, protection,
procreation
In
Ilaiah’s reading, Dalit‑Bahujan divinities are rooted in everyday work,
survival and community, not in ritual purity or world‑denial. Goddesses like
Pochamma, Kattamaisamma, Polimeramma, Sammakka–Sarakka, Yellamma, and others
are linked to agriculture, water management, protection of village boundaries,
and defence against invasions. Gods like Potaraju, Beerappa, caste‑specific
heroes or ancestors are tied to herding, field protection, or particular crafts
and occupations. These gods/goddesses:
- Do not demand elaborate yagnas, costly offerings or Sanskrit
mantras. Their rituals are simple, local, and usually mediated by the
people themselves, not by a separate priestly caste.
- Do not create enemy images inside the village; their concern is
prosperity, health, fertility and basic social peace, not war or
conquest.
- Do not enforce rigid gender roles: Pochamma has no husband;
Akkamankali in the Beerappa story is central, competent, and unmarried
without stigma; many village goddesses are remembered as wise women, not
as submissive wives.
Ilaiah
summarises this by saying that Dalit‑Bahujan religion centres
on production, protection and procreation, whereas Brahminical Hinduism
centres on leisure, ritual, and other‑worldly purity.
Brahminical gods and Hindutva: from caste theology to
majoritarian state
Against
this, Ilaiah places the pantheon of Brahminical Hinduism. Gods like Indra,
Brahma, Vishnu, Rama and Krishna are presented as weapon‑wielding rulers whose
main role in the narratives is to suppress Dalit‑Bahujan kings, tribes and
revolts. Goddesses like Saraswati, Lakshmi and Sita are used to naturalise a
gender order in which upper‑caste women support Brahmin–Kshatriya dominance and
remain dependent, even while symbolising “knowledge” or “wealth”. In these
stories, karma and varṇa are used to turn
historical conquest into divine order.
- Varṇa (“Brahmins from the head, Shudras from the feet”) gives a
sacred origin story for unequal social roles.
- Karma makes present poverty or untouchability appear as the just
result of past deeds, not of current exploitation.
Ilaiah
argues that the same upper‑caste forces now weaponise Hindutva. When Mandal
reservations threatened Brahmin–Bania dominance, the Hindutva movement
mobilised Rama, Krishna and other symbols to rebuild upper‑caste hegemony under
the banner of “Hindu unity”. Vaishnavite and Shaivite strands that once had
tensions are, in his account, welded into a monolithic Hindutva that is as anti‑Dalit‑Bahujan
as it is anti‑minority.
So
Hindutva is not a neutral “Hindu pride”; it is the latest political form of a
long Brahminical habit of using religious ideas to stabilise hierarchy.
As a Christian: affirming riches, refusing caste
theology
From within this diagnosis, I can make two
observations:
1. Honouring genuine spiritual riches
I
have experienced real gifts in Hindu (and Dalit‑Bahujan) religiosity: A sense
of the sacredness of nature — earth, water, forest, animals — as “aai/mata/janani”
(mother) that deepens my own sense of creation as sacrament. Its rich forms
of prayer and songs (aartis, bhajans, village festivals) that draw people into
gratitude, solidarity and joy often with minimal economic waste or priestly
control. Philosophical insights about the mystery of the Absolute, the
complexity of desire, and the relativity of human perspectives (as in Advaita
or Jain anekāntavāda) that resonate with Christian apophatic and
dialogical traditions.
I
receive these as “seeds of the Word” without accepting the idea that God
willed caste hierarchy or that Dalit‑Bahujans are born to serve.
2. Rejecting Hindutva as betrayal of Hinduism’s best
Because I distinguish between:
- Hindu spiritual traditions that stress plurality, non‑violence, and
dignity (Vivekananda, Gandhi, Bhakti, Dalit‑Bahujan religiosity).
- Hindutva as a political ideology that fuses Brahminical caste
theology with ethnic nationalism, excludes minorities, and romanticises
violence. Savarkar and Golwalkar are explicit about common blood, holy
land, and the subordination or assimilation of Muslims and Christians.
I can
say, in good conscience that I stand with Hindu critics — Ambedkarites, Dalit‑Bahujan
theologians — who see Hindutva as a malign distortion of their own
faith and culture, not its natural flowering. I will not allow ‘Hinduism’
to be equated with either caste oppression or majoritarian aggression, because
there are Hindu and Dalit‑Bahujan resources that openly contest both.
These
dual observations help me remain grateful for what Hindu and Dalit‑Bahujan
traditions have contributed to my understanding of God, nature and humanity. It
also becomes sufficiently clear that neither caste theology nor Hindutva can be
baptised as compatible with the Gospel of Christ, with Ambedkarite justice, or
with the Indian Constitution.
What this means for my “Hindu culture”
When I
call myself culturally Hindu, I am not simply affirming the Sanskritic, upper‑caste
“Hinduism” that Savarkar and Hindutva claim as the national norm. I instead
claim a Maharashtrian Hindu culture in which Phule has already unmasked
Brahminical myth, Shahu has already empowered the ‘low-castes’, and Ambedkar
has already staged a public break with Manusmriti in the name of an Indian
alternative - Buddhism. That culture still loves the spiritual practices, but
it carries within it a strong, historically formed allergy to sacralised
hierarchy.
This
is why for me, being “Hindu by culture” can sit alongside a Christian faith and
an Ambedkarite conscience. The “Hinduness” I carry is already shaped by those
three figures’ struggle for the Bahujan, not by the Brahminical or Hindutva
story of a ‘harmonious’, caste‑ordered Hindu nation, where one caste shall
govern everyone else.
Hindutva: a militant political project
The
confusion and hurt I describe, arise because “Hindu” has been politically re‑coded
by Hindutva.
Savarkar’s Essentials of Hindutva and Golwalkar’s glosses give the key
moves. Savarkar defined a Hindu as one who regards the land from Sindhu to the
sea as both fatherland (pitribhū) and holy land (puṇyabhū). This
definition explicitly excludes Muslims and Christians because their “holy
lands” are Mecca and Jerusalem; they may share territory but not the “race‑culture”
that, for him, constitutes the nation. Golwalkar radicalised this ethnicism: he
praised Nazi Germany’s “race pride” and argued that in Hindusthan
“foreign races” must either merge completely into Hindu culture, or live
“wholly subordinated” without rights.
Shashi
Tharoor’s reading underlines how far this is from the porous Hinduism of
Vivekananda or Gandhi. Vedantic Hinduism, with its stress on plurality and sarva‑dharma‑sambhāva
(there is good in all religions), animated an inclusive nationalism that could
fight the British together with Muslims, Sikhs and Christians.
Hindutva,
by contrast, is a twentieth‑century attempt to forge a homogeneous Hindu Rashtra
by turning faith into ethnocracy, treating Hindu-ness as a racial‑civilisational
essence. Kancha Ilaiah shows how, on the ground, this takes a distinctly North‑Indian,
upper‑caste, often Hindi‑speaking form. He describes “militant Hindutva” of the
1980s–90s (Ayodhya, BJP) as an alliance of Vaishnavite and Shaivite forces,
using Ram and other avatars to mobilise violence and to re‑tighten Brahminical
hegemony over Dalit‑Bahujans.
For
Christians and Muslims, this shift is felt as a de‑Indianisation. Savarkar’s
logic relegates us to at best “guests” or at worst “hostiles,” because our
Faith or śraddhā connect us also to Rome or Mecca. Tharoor notes that Hindutva
ideologues routinely speak of Muslims and Christians as invaders or “foreign
races,” even when their ancestors are as Indian as any other. So the sense of
being made a foreigner “in the land of our ancestors” is not paranoia; it is
produced by an explicit ideological project that re‑writes who “belongs” to India.
Abrahamic missions, violence and caste
A
Christian critique of Hindutva must be honest about wounds inflicted by Christians
and Muslims in India. Tharoor and Ilaiah both acknowledge the long memory of:
- Invasions and iconoclasm by some Muslim rulers, and coercive or
opportunistic conversions in certain periods.
- Colonial missions that sometimes despised Indian cultures, and the
complicity of churches in European colonial expansion.
At
the same time, many “atrocity legends” are exaggerated or fabricated to feed
Hindutva narratives. Tharoor notes that stories about forced conversions or
temple destruction often ignore complex political motives and long histories of
coexistence. Ilaiah shows how Brahminical storytellers weaponise myth (Rama vs
Ravana, Vamana vs Bali) to code Dalit‑Bahujans as enemies, and how similar myth‑making
now targets Christians and Muslims. Dr. Ram Puniyani through his numerous talks
and essays has highlighted the political nature of faith by giving an example
of how during one of their campaigns the Marathas (a Hindu power) looted a
temple during their battle with the Nizam (a Muslim ruler) and how the Nizam
restored the temple again after the battle. Hence, we should remember that
religion during medieval times was more of a political tool and not the
spiritual path of salvation that we think of it today.
Fundamentalism
is not a Hindu monopoly. Protestant and Catholic groups in parts of the global
South have preached exclusivist theologies, demonised other religions, and sometimes
supported authoritarian regimes. Islamist movements have used jihadist
readings of Islam to justify terror and majoritarian repression. Tharoor
comments that Hindutva mirrors many features of twentieth‑century Islamist and
fascist movements: a golden past, a narrative of humiliation, and a will to
power.
Yet
caste complicates this picture. Ilaiah insists that a large proportion of
converts to Islam and Christianity in India were Dalit‑Bahujans fleeing caste
oppression, not seduced foreigners. Ambedkar’s own conversion to Buddhism is an
emblem of this: a search for a non‑Brahminical, non‑caste path to fraternity. So
the Hindu nationalist story that “foreign religions” broke India’s unity
conveniently forgets the internal violence of caste that drove people to seek homes
in other religions.
Fundamentalism as a cross‑religious temptation
Given
this history, it would be hypocritical for a Christian to denounce Hindutva
while ignoring Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. A fundamentalist style appears
when:
- Scripture is read as a flat, inerrant code, detached from context
and tradition.
- Religious identity is fused with state power, and dissenters are
branded as traitors.
- Violence (symbolic or physical) is justified “for God,” “for the
nation,” or “for the poor,” without discernment of spirits.
Tharoor
shows how Hindutva ideologues seek to “Semitise” Hinduism: to reduce its
complex, plural heritage to one book (Gita), one god (often Rama), one language
(Hindi), one nation (Hindu Rashtra) under the hegemony of one caste (Brahmins).
This is precisely the kind of narrowing that Catholic theology has learned to
critique in itself after the Second Vatican Council, in favour of a richer,
sacramental and dialogical vision.
My
own alignment with Phule–Ambedkarite critiques gives a further reason not to
romanticise “Christian fundamentalism”: any church that seeks to re‑create
caste‑like hierarchies or patriarchy in the name of Christ betrays both the
Gospel of Christ and the Constitution of India.
Hindutva’s use of cultural distrust
The
genius — and danger — of Hindutva lies in its ability to harvest real
grievances into a homogenising project. Tharoor shows how Hindutva leaders
narrate every policy favouring minorities as “appeasement,” and every constitutional
protection as a betrayal of the Hindu majority. Ilaiah notes how Brahminical
forces repeatedly co‑opt Dalit‑Bahujan leaders and symbols (e.g., using Ram,
Krishna, even Ambedkar’s image) to rebuild caste consent under a Hindu banner.
This politics feeds on:
- Memories of Muslim rule and Partition.
- Stories of “aggressive proselytism” by Christians and Muslims.
Rather
than heal these wounds, Hindutva hardens them into a permanent friend‑enemy
map, in which the Christian, Muslim, Dalit, feminist, secularist or “urban
Naxal” becomes a convenient internal enemy.
Catholic inculturation and Indian belonging
In
this context, Catholic inculturation is not a cosmetic “Hinduisation” of the
liturgy, but a theological and political statement. Missionaries like Roberto
de Nobili in Tamil Nadu and Constanzo Beschi (Veeramamunivar) in South India
tried, with mixed success, to express the Gospel through local languages, dress
and concepts, even as Rome sometimes mistrusted their experiments. In the
twentieth century, figures like Henri Le Saux (Abhishiktananda) embodied a
contemplative encounter between Advaita and Christian mysticism, living as a
Christian sanyasi and inviting the Church to learn from Hindu
interiority.
The
contemporary magisterium has slowly endorsed this path. Nostra Aetate
and later documents affirm that the Church “rejects nothing that is true and
holy” in other religions, and that dialogue and collaboration are intrinsic to
her mission. Indian episcopal conferences have encouraged aartis, bhajans,
Indian musical forms, and architectural symbols in liturgy, so that the Church
appears as truly “Indian,” not a foreign transplant.
For a
Maharashtrian Christian, this means: Participating in Ganpati or Diwali at a
cultural level need not threaten baptismal identity; it can be an act of
neighbourly solidarity, provided one avoids syncretisms that confuse Christ
with any other avatar. Keeping distance from Hindutva rallies or hate
campaigns is not “anti‑Hindu”; it is fidelity to both Gospel and to the deepest
pluralist instincts of Hindu civilisation itself.
Ignatian discernment at the crossroads
Ignatian
spirituality offers tools to navigate precisely this kind of interior and
social conflict.
Key movements:
- Consolation: where an experience increases faith, hope, love, and solidarity,
even if it is demanding. For me, childhood memories of Ganpati aarti and
Mass together are consoling; they expanded, not shrank, my heart.
- Desolation: where a discourse triggers fear, hatred, or contempt for
neighbours as such, even if wrapped in religious or patriotic language.
Hindutva slogans that make me feel less Indian because I am a Christian
are classic desolation.
Discernment then asks:
- Where does a given “Hindu” practice or discourse come from? From
the Spirit of life, or from the “enemy of human nature”?
- Does it lead toward more inclusive justice—especially for the poor
and Dalit‑Bahujans—or toward the hardening of caste and communal boundaries?
Ignatian discernment never stops at interior peace; it
asks for concrete choices.
- To remain publicly Christian and culturally Hindu while rejecting
Hindutva is itself a mission: to embody an alternative nationalism that is
both constitutional and spiritual.
- To engage Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and secular friends in
honest conversation about mutual wounds, privileges and fears is part of
that mission.
Conscience at the crossroads: toward peace for a
wounded nation
My
conscience stands at a crossroads shaped by at least four roads:
- The plural, porous, Maharashtrian Hindu–Christian world that formed
me.
- The Dalit‑Bahujan critique of Brahminical Hinduism.
- The Catholic call to inculturation and dialogue.
- The hardening of Hindutva into state and street violence.
From these sources, certain convictions emerge.
i. Religion cannot be the foundation of the modern nation‑state.
Tharoor
shows that states that sacralise one religion—Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nazi‑inspired
projects — slide toward exclusion, internal violence, and international
isolation. Hindutva’s explicit admiration, in Golwalkar, for aspects of Nazi
race policy is a theological and constitutional alarm bell, not an academic
curiosity.
ii. Hinduism’s own best resources resist Hindutva.
Vivekananda
and Gandhi grounded their Hinduism in sarva‑dharma‑sambhāva, ahimsa and satya,
not in purity, race or holy land. Any project that demands Muslims or
Christians erase their distinctiveness in order to belong betrays this deeper
Hindu ethos.
iii. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism must also be
resisted.
A modern
India cannot be built by erasing Hindu symbols; it must grow by purifying our
own memories, confessing our own complicities, and standing with all victims of
violence regardless of religion.
iv. The Constitution is a providential “antidote” to
religious and caste stratification.
Articles
14–18 on equality, and the freedom of religion provisions, function as a
secular “grace” that protects Dalits, minorities and dissenters. For an Indian
citizen, defending the Constitution is not secularism against religion, but the
political form of love of neighbour.
From this discernment, a way of being suggests itself:
- To be Christian by religion: centred on the Eucharist, the
poor Christ, and the Magisterium’s call to justice and dialogue.
- To be Hindu by culture: fluent in Marathi symbols, at home
in aartis and bhajans, grateful for Advaita and Bhakti insights that have
deepened my sense of mystery.
- To not become a fundamentalist myself: refusing any ideology
— Hindutva, Christian nationalism, Islamist politics — that turns God into
a totem and neighbours into enemies.
Peace
for the nation will not come by denying identities, but by weaving them
together in a constitutional and spiritual covenant. Hindutva, like Nazi
ideology, promises unity through scapegoats; history shows that such unity
devours its own children and leaves only ruins. A different path— a “conscience
at crossroads” path — seeks unity through truth‑telling about caste and
communal wounds, through constitutional fidelity, and through the everyday
holiness of neighbours who still share sweets at Diwali, Eid and Christmas.
Bibliography
Primary
political and religious texts
Ambedkar, B. R. (1990). Annihilation
of caste (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: Arnold Publishers.
Ambedkar, B. R.
(2014). The Buddha and his Dhamma: A critical edition (A. A.
Engineer, Ed.). New Delhi, India: Critical Quest.
Ilaiah Shepherd, K.
(2009). Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra critique of Hindutva philosophy,
culture and political economy (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: Samya.
Savarkar, V. D.
(1969). Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Bombay, India: Veer Savarkar
Prakashan.
Tharoor, S.
(2018). Why I am a Hindu. New Delhi, India: Aleph Book Company.
Golwalkar, M. S.
(1980). Bunch of thoughts (12th ed.). Bangalore, India:
Sahitya Sindhu.
Dalit‑Bahujan
and Maharashtrian reformers
Ambedkar, B. R.
(2014). Writings and speeches (Vols. 1–17). Mumbai, India: Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee, Government of
Maharashtra.
Omvedt, G.
(1994). Dalits and the democratic revolution: Dr Ambedkar and the Dalit
movement in colonial India. New Delhi, India: Sage.
Phule, J. (2002). Slavery
(Gulamgiri) (P. Kasbe, Trans.). New Delhi, India: Critical Quest.
(Original work published 1873)
Teltumbde, A.
(2018). Republic of caste: Thinking equality in the time of neoliberal
Hindutva. New Delhi, India: Navayana.
Hindutva,
nationalism, and contemporary politics
Bhatt, C. (2001). Hindu
nationalism: Origins, ideologies and modern myths. New York, NY: Berg.
Jaffrelot, C.
(2007). Hindu nationalism: A reader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Puniyani, R.
(2003). Communal politics: Facts versus myths. New Delhi, India:
Sage.
Catholic
magisterium and inculturation
Second Vatican Council.
(1965). Nostra aetate (Declaration on the relation of the Church to
non-Christian religions). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Second Vatican Council.
(1965). Ad gentes (Decree on the Church’s missionary activity).
Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Second Vatican Council.
(1965). Gaudium et spes (Pastoral constitution on the Church in the
modern world). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
John Paul II.
(1990). Redemptoris missio (On the permanent validity of the Church’s
missionary mandate). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue. (1991). Dialogue and proclamation. Vatican
City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Inculturation
and Hindu–Christian encounter
Abhishiktananda (Le
Saux, H.). (1974). Saccidānanda: A Christian approach to Advaitic
experience. Delhi, India: ISPCK.
Amaladoss, M.
(1990). Making all things new: Dialogue, inculturation, and innovation
in Christianity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Clooney, F. X.
(2010). Hindu God, Christian God: How reason helps break down the
boundaries between religions. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Maraimalai, A.
(2013). Roberto de Nobili and the accommodation method in India.
Bangalore, India: NBCLC.
Saldanha, S. (2025). At
the Crossroads between Ashram and Church: Living Christianity in India. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17762765
Ignatian
spirituality
Ganss, G. E. (Trans.).
(1991). The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius. St. Louis, MO:
Institute of Jesuit Sources.
O’Collins, G., &
Farrugia, E. G. (2013). A concise dictionary of theology (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Paulist Press. (Entries on discernment and Ignatian
spirituality)
Indian
Constitution and secularism
Austin, G.
(1999). Working a democratic constitution: The Indian experience.
New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Baxi, U. (2013). The
Indian Constitution: A short introduction. New Delhi, India: Oxford
University Press.
Bhargava,
R. (Ed.). (1998). Secularism and its critics. New Delhi, India:
Oxford University Press.
