Thread by @shrikanth_krish

One issue with modern H-Right

In its efforts to create a neat "conservative" / "dharmic" narrative, it glosses over many sources of radical thought in India (both Astika and heterodox)

Even if the country were untouched by "abrahAmics", there would still be "politics" in India

There is a tendency to think "Buddhism" / "Jainism" represented "radicalism" / unorthodoxy in Indian thought.

As though the rest of the H-sphere was somehow "pure" / untainted by "innovation"

That's not true

The rise of the bhAgavata religion, sectarian Vaishanvism, pAncharAtra theology was extremely radical

Its radicalism was acknowledged even by traditional commentators

Though it operated within the vaidika / astika fold

Sectarianism / theological enthusiasms of any kind - be it the bhAgavata religion, Shaivism, Kaumarism - were forms of radicalism, not necessarily in keeping with the polytheistic and ritual-centric religion of Vedas

Compromises were struck. So we seem like one happy family now

But that was not how these movements were perceived 2000 years ago

Was bhagavad Gita always the numero uno text for HIndus? No

It was a radical text in many ways. Originally championed by the sAtvatas likely

Over time became this pre-eminent Vedantic text

The same observation holds for notions of Dharma and social conduct

Many practices have been kali varjya for 2000+ years though they were extremely prevalent in earlier times

E.g. Widow remarriage. Niyoga, widespread animal sacrifice in Vedic yajnas

I am sure there were "intellectual movements" against these practices by the "progressives" of an earlier age

Resulting in new norms

Today we take those norms for granted
Defending these norms is "conservatism" for us
Back in 200 BCE, defending these norms was a radical thing