#indicthought

A civilization does not perish only when its temples are destroyed or its borders are breached. It begins to weaken when its own people start viewing their sacred foundations through borrowed lenses and external frameworks.

One of the most subtle challenges facing modern Hindus today is the tendency to reduce the Ramayana and Mahabharata to mere "mythology" in an attempt to gain academic approval or intellectual acceptance. In doing so, many unknowingly strip these texts of the very sacred framework that has sustained Hindu civilization for millennia.

The issue is not whether archaeology, history, linguistics, or textual criticism have value. They certainly do. Historical inquiry can deepen our understanding of the past. But there is a profound difference between using history to understand a tradition and using history to redefine that tradition according to modern ideological standards.

No major civilization abandons its foundational truths simply because external scholars interpret them differently. Christians do not reduce Christ to merely a moral teacher. Muslims do not regard the Quran as only a historical document. Jews do not discard their sacred narratives because secular academia debates them.

Yet many Hindus are encouraged to believe that their sacred history must be stripped of divinity and reduced to folklore before it can be considered intellectually respectable.Within the Hindu framework, Shri Ram and Shri Krishna are not merely historical figures whose stories grew through exaggeration. They are avatars who embody Dharma itself. The Ramayana and Mahabharata are not simply literary works or political allegories.

They are Itihasa—civilizational memory carrying ethical, spiritual, philosophical, and metaphysical truths that continue to guide society.Sanatan Dharma has never feared debate. It has nurtured countless philosophical traditions, encouraged inquiry, and embraced intellectual diversity. However, healthy inquiry begins with understanding a tradition on its own terms—not by dismissing its foundational assumptions from the outset.When Hindus begin saying, "Ram was only a local king," or "Krishna was merely a tribal chief later turned into God," they may believe they are making Hinduism more acceptable to modern academia.

In reality, they are hollowing out the sacred framework that gives the civilization its coherence, continuity, and spiritual depth.A civilization cannot survive if every foundational belief becomes endlessly negotiable under external pressure. Some things may be debated, interpreted, and understood in multiple ways.

But some principles form the very spine of a civilization.Sanatan's strength lies not in seeking validation from outside frameworks, but in possessing the confidence to understand itself through its own timeless wisdom. Scholarship should enrich our understanding, not become a tool for civilizational self-erasure.The Ramayana is Itihasa. The Mahabharata is Itihasa.

Sanatan is not a mythology waiting for approval—it is a living civilization that has endured because it remembers who it is.