Civilisational anchors
At a time when public discourse in Goa is marked by heightened sensitivities, it is necessary that reassurance be drawn not from contestation, but from continuity. It must be recalled that the philosophical foundations of the Indian subcontinent had articulated principles of coexistence and tolerance long before the advent of organised missionary movements or colonial encounters. These principles were not merely implied but were expressed in a manner that has endured across centuries. The texts of the Vedas, Upanishads, and Mahabharata are found to contain reflections that continue to resonate within the constitutional ethos of modern India.
Plurality in the Vedic vision
The Vedic corpus is observed to articulate plurality not as a concession, but as a principle. A foundational expression is found in the Rig Veda:
> “Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti” (Ṛg Veda 1.164.46)
Truth is one, the wise speak of it in many ways.
This formulation is seen to reject exclusivism at its root. It is not plurality of convenience, but plurality of understanding that is acknowledged. Similarly, the spirit of openness is captured in:
> “Ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ” (Ṛg Veda 1.89.1)
Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions.
It is thereby indicated that knowledge and truth are not to be monopolised. The Vedic seer is portrayed as receptive, not defensive. Such a framework leaves little room for coercion in matters of belief.
Unity in the Upanishadic realisation
The philosophical culmination of Vedic thought in the Upanishads is seen to deepen this tolerance by grounding it in ontology. In the Chandogya Upanishad, the declaration is made:
> “Tat tvam asi” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7)
That thou art.
This is not merely a metaphysical assertion. It is implied that the same ultimate reality pervades all beings. The ethical consequence of such realisation is articulated in the Isha Upanishad:
> “Yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmany evānupaśyati… na vijugupsate” (Īśa Upaniṣad 6)
He who sees all beings in the Self… does not hate.
Hatred is thereby rendered irrational when unity is perceived. Tolerance, in this sense, is not imposed but realised.
Mahabharata:
No doctrine of religious exclusivism
Unlike exclusivist traditions observed in the Mahabharata:
- Does not insist on one exclusive path or belief
- Accommodates multiple philosophical schools
- Presents diverse modes of worship and thought
Within its fold, one can find:
- Vedic ritualism
- Renunciatory philosophy
- Bhakti (devotion)
- Ethical humanism
These coexist without a demand that one must eliminate the others.
Bhagvad Gita:
The Mahabharata contains the Bhagavad Gita, which explicitly supports:
- Multiple paths to the divine
- Freedom of spiritual choice
This reinforces the epic’s broader inclusive framework.
Implicit rejection of coercion:
Even though there is no direct reference, several teachings run counter to coercive religion.
From the Bhagavad Gita (18.63):
Freedom of spiritual choice
“Reflect on this fully, and then act as you choose.”
This clearly rejects compulsion.
Ethical universality in the Mahabharata:
The Mahabharata is found to translate philosophical insight into ethical conduct. In the Anuśāsana Parva, it is stated:
> “Ahimsā paramo dharmaḥ”
Non-violence is the highest duty.
This is reinforced by a universal moral injunction:
> “Ātmanah pratikūlāni pareṣāṁ na samācharet”
One should not do to others what is harmful to oneself.
The epic further acknowledges the complexity of moral truth:
> “Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām”
The essence of dharma lies hidden in subtlety.
It is thus suggested that rigid assertions of superiority are misplaced. The Mahabharata does not advocate uniformity, but calls for discernment, restraint, and coexistence.
Continuity and constitutional reflection
It is significant that these expressions precede any historical encounter with organised proselytising traditions. They are not reactive doctrines, but foundational ones. In the Goan context, where the legacy of Francis Xavier is held in deep reverence, it must be recognised that his own missionary zeal was situated within a different theological framework. Yet, the present moment does not call for a revisitation of contested histories, but for a reaffirmation of shared values.
The Constitution of India, under Article 25, guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion. It is submitted that this modern articulation is not alien to Indian civilisation. Rather, it is reflective of an older philosophical inheritance that had already acknowledged diversity of belief and unity of existence.
The Dharmashastric tradition, though not elaborated herein, is also known to have recognised deshachara and kulachara, thereby permitting diversity of practice within a broad normative framework. This further strengthens the proposition that tolerance was structurally embedded.
A call for civilisational restraint
In the present climate, apprehensions of division between communities in Goa must be addressed with intellectual honesty and civilisational confidence. It is neither necessary nor prudent that communities be pitted against one another on the basis of historical grievances. Instead, it is desirable that the enduring principles of tolerance be invoked as a shared heritage.
The Vedic seer had welcomed thoughts from all directions. The Upanishadic sage had seen the self in all beings. The epic tradition had insisted upon non-violence and reciprocity. These are not fragmented insights, but a coherent civilisational ethic.
It may therefore be concluded that religious tolerance in India is not a borrowed virtue, but an intrinsic one. It has been contemplated, articulated, and preserved across millennia. In times of uncertainty, it is these eternal truths that must be regarded as steadfast, incapable of erosion, and worthy of continued adherence.
