When confronted with attacks on all fronts, social consolidation of identity-conscious

Hindus becomes inevitable. Such a precedent is unwelcome for Indo-secularists, who, it

seems, endeavor to thwart such consolidation. Further, they dismiss with ridicule any
contention that Hindus are discriminated against. Such outright dismissal leads to further
neglect and deprivation. Fabricated Indo-secular idioms of all sorts are bandied around to
"placate" sentiments, but it is obvious to anyone with an iota of discernment that IndoSeculars are not conciliatory agents
Secularists, it seems, are not very vocal to voice their condemnation when Hindu
community becomes victim of Aggression. They, however, are overtly concerned at any such
possibility for others, even when there is no foreseeable danger. Thus, so to make sure that
no social consolidation of Identity conscious Hindus ever takes place, they throw around
appeals to higher morality while guilt-tripping Hindus at the same time by naming and
perpetually shaming them (sometimes even falsely) for acts of even minor aggression. Thus,
phrases such as "Hindu religion 'respects' all religions" are thrown around relentlessly. They
also serve a malicious agenda of deconstruction of Hindu Identity whilst upholding and
enhancing Non-Hindu identity by constantly dealing with them as religious groups i...e...
Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc..,.. The Hindus by contrast are dealt with as a group
only when they have to be named and shamed. Otherwise, they are spoken of in
terms of caste groups, linguistic groups, gender groups, age groups etc..,. As
Hindus have to "consider all religions as equal", their identity as a group is effectively
nullified. Such appeals, it has to be observed, are never made to other religions. While any
effort to minimize bloodshed is certainly commendable, it can easily be seen that
minimizing conflict has never been the intention of Indo-secularists. They enhance the
conflict by falsely depicting 'minorities' as perpetual victims of violence and bigotry at the
hands of Hindus and completely overlooking acts of 'minority' aggression and
fundamentalism. They enhance the conflict by inculcating into non-Hindus a
feeling of victimhood and shielding their religion from reform by censorship
and persecution of its critics. It is clear that deconstruction of Hindu Identity is the sole
purpose of these idioms. The immediate consequence is that 'minorities' continue to enjoy
social, economic and material benefits to the detriment of Hindus. The long term
consequence is deconstruction of Hindu identity to such a degree as not be able
to put up any united front against oppression
Eventually, Hindus have interiorized much of maliciously fabricated secular parlance. This
post intends to examine a "secular" phrase which is supposedly taken from Hindu literature

ekam sad vipr bahudh vadanti
A Rgvedic phrase, this is supposedly taken to mean that "all religions are same". A most
common translation runs as "truth is one, wise call it by many names". Is it really so?
This hymn comes from Rgveda samhita(1.164). The author of these series of hymns,
according to anukramanis as well as by explicit appellation in the samhita itself, is
Dirghatamas Aucathya. Dirghatamas was a philosopher (dirgha+tamas literally means

"long night" as the philosopher contemplated into the skies) and this hymn was an
enigmatic one.
Of relevance to this discussion is another hymn by the same author in the same series of the
same mandala.
In Rgveda 1.150.2, he says |

dhanina=wealthy person;adevayoh=godless;chidrarusha=lacking force;cana=not;
kada+cana=never;prajigata=forthcoming;adevayoh=godless;prahosha=praises/oblation
Scholarly translation(provided by Sanskrit linguist S W Jamison):
(I go) away (from the protection) of the rich man who lacks force, who
gives nothing even when oblations are made, who, not seeking the gods, is never
forthcoming.
The supposedly "secular" poet claims to walk away from a patron who does not properly
conduct the Vedic ritual and does not seek Vedic gods. There is not even any trace of "all
paths lead to same", "all religions are equal, truth one many names" etc..,.
It is thus apparently clear that "secularism" is a back projection of modern ideas right into
Bronze Age. The poem could only be understood when placed in its proper context
The hymn containing the phrase "ekam sad vipra bahuda vadanti" is dedicated by its
Brahman poet Dirghatamas to Gods vishvedas(literally meaning "all vedic gods").
According to vedic sources(Aitreya Aranyaka 5.3.2; Samkhyayanaka Aranyaka 2.18 etc..,.),
the hymn was recited at Mahavrata ritual, which falls on summer solstice according to
Kaustiki Brahmana (19.3). This "solar" background should be noted at the outset
The ekam(=one) of this verse is actually identified with sun in verse 6 of the same hymn.
Just as in any typical Vedic hymn which identifies the ritual with formation of cosmos,Vedic
gods are equated and said to be one, true to the spirit of a Vishvedevas hymn!
A translation follows |

Word to wordIndram=Indra(Accusative); Mitram=Mitra(Accusative);Varunam=Varuna(Acc)
;Agnim=Agni(Acc); divya=Divine; sa=he; suparo=su+parna=well feathered;

garutman=Garuda;Ekam=one; sat=truth; vipr=Brahmins; bahudh=many; vadanti=they

speak(plural third person).Yamam=Yama;Matarisvanam=Matarisvan;
TranslationThey speak of it as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and Agni, as also the ,
well-feathered Garuda
Though truth is One, Brahmins speak of it in many ways. They say it is
Agni, Yama, and Mtarivan.
The verse emphasizes the identity of 33 Vedic gods. It says the many gods Brahmins speak
of is one. Nowhere is any identification with "non-Hindu" gods. That "truth is one" is
exclusive to Vedic gods is clear from another verse of Rigveda (7.21.5) which reads as Let
the Shishnadevas not penetrate our truth". While Shishnadeva is translated as "phallus
worshippers"(infact shishna=tail/penis) by most modern Sanskritists and Indologists,
ancient Sanskrit grammarian and etymologist Yaksha translated the word as "unchaste
people". Whatever the case, it seems that shishnadeva were religiously non-Vedic( gods?)
and not party to "truth is one". Neither is there any secularism" nor "all religions are same"
In fact, the Rigveda speaks of "others" as thusAround us is the Dasyu, riteless, void of thought, inhuman, keeping other rituals(Rgveda
10.22)
Here, a Dasyu is described as "riteless"(akarmah) and keeping other rituals"(anyavrata).
He is also called inhuman (amanusha). Prominent Indologists (Elst 1999, parpola 1998)
have identified Dasyus with proto-Iranians, Proto-zoroastrians and even proto-sakas. This
identification lies on a fact that Dahae is a self-designation for North Iranian tribes of
Central Asia even today. The classical Greeks have also located Dahae in central Asia. Elst
speculates that these Dasysus were Zarathustra's followers. SW Jamison notes that in
another verse of the aforementioned Dasyu hymn that the krpanas(=karapans), the vedic
enemies of Zoroastrians, are mentioned favorably. Whatever the identity of Dasyus, it is
clear that their religion and rituals differed (even if slightly) from Vedic Aryans. Yet, they
were differentiated in very clear terms.
It should thus be concluded that ideas such as "all religions same" cannot be derived from
Rgveda
The said phrase "ekam sat..." happens to be one of the most popular idioms of modern
Hinduism. Below, we compose a short account of its history
To be sure, the said phrase is not unique. There are some philosophical proto-monistic
hymns in the Rigveda. Notable is Rigveda 8.58.2, which says "One has manifested into the
whole world"(eka va idam vi babhau sarvam). Sayana considers this verse to be an answer
to Rigveda 10.88.18, which asks "how many fires, how many suns,how many Dawns,How
many waters? ( katyaghnaya kati srysa katyusa katyu svidpa). However,
modern Indologists point out that such hymns appear only in late Mandalas(1 and 10) . RV

8.58 is from Bashakala collection. This khila hymn is absent from Sakalya edition and is
devoid of any entry in Anukramani
Yet, it is universally accepted that entire Rgveda in its current form is one of the oldest
extant religious texts from Bronze age. Prominent linguist and Sanskritist Michael
witzel(1989,2000) considers the entire Rgveda to be a "tape recording". To quote him-"even
minor accents were preserved". Thus, these monistic verses could not have been much
younger than the core, if at all! It could safely be presumed that nothing in the Rgveda dates
to post second millennium BCE. The monistic philosophy is well expounded in
upanishads(notably ishopanishad).
Here arises the obvious question-why did this verse gain such prominence when similar
hymns could well be found in the Rgveda samhita?
Aitreya Aranyaka(3.2.3) quotes another verse from the same hymn(1.64.39) which talks
about divine speech(vac). While the ritual context is apparent (these hymns were recited at
pravargya and mahavrata), there is no mention of "ekam sad". Yet, the monistic
orientation of AA is clear from the verse 2.2.2 "the one is everything that is known and
heard" (sarve veda,sarve ghosha..)
Ancient Sanskrit Grammarian and etymologist Yaksha (c.600 BCE) in his Nirukta attributes
this verse to terrestrial Agni(Yaksha;swarup.122) . Thus Yaksha continues to treat the verse
in its ritual context.The great vedic commentator Sayana (c.1350 AD) followed yaksha's
explanation
Post yaksha, the verse fell into oblivion. Why? To be sure, the Vedic religion fell into general
decline. The reasons postulated are
1. The Vedic language became increasingly unintelligible
2.Consecration of Vedas as 'apaurusheya'(divine) . Right from the early date it was
collected and redacted, the Rigveda became very sacred. It was recited with utmost
care in an oral manner and very faithfully transmitted. Barring a few exceptions
(notably in Mundaka upanishad where nasadiya sukta was questioned), Nobody
challenged its contents. Because they were kept out of purview of general debate,
Vedic verses although recited and consecrated gradually went into decline
3.The general eclipse of Vedic Hinduism with the emergence of Puranic Hinduism
Yet, other Rgvedic verses which were recast into a puranic framework continued to be
popular. Rgveda 3.62.10 came to be recast as "Gayatri mantra". Rgveda 2.23.1 was recast as
"Ganapati mantra". Rgveda 7.59.12 was recast as "mrtyunjaya mantra". These hymns
happen to be popular even today. The inescapable conclusion is that "ekam sad.." was not as
prominent as it is today

Throughout the medieval period, there was not a single mention of this verse in the
literature of Bhakti poets. Wherever the Bhakti poets concerned themselves with the veda,
they claimed that "neti,neti"(literally meaning 'not this,not this') was the essence of Veda.
Actually, this is a post-vedic upanishadic phrase and fits well into the philosophy espoused
therein. Many bhakti saints (cf..Nanak,kabir,Namadeva,Tukaram,Srimanta Shankaradeva
etc..,.) already interiorized some Islamic ideals and inculcated monotheism and antiidolatrous ideology into their nirguni bhakti. Yet, no one had mentioned this verse to back
their ideological stand. Even Dayananda Sarasvati who set out to establish "vedic
monotheism" never mentioned this verse.
The verse was brought back from oblivion in the book 'history of sanskrit language' , thanks
to Indologist Max Mueller. Ironically, Max Mueller was one of the earliest exponents of
"Aryan invasion theory". (He is named and shamed by some Internet Hindus) A staunch
Lutheran, Mueller's ultimate intention was to Christianize Hindus. Mueller was quick to
label Rgvedic belief as "henotheistic". These "monotheistic" verses were mentioned by other
European historians with glee as it stretched their monotheism" further back in time.

Max Mueller
Writes historian cum bishop Edward William Cox(1875)
for many striking illustrations, we must refer to Max Mueller's history of sanskrit
language. ..There is one verse which declares the existence of one divine being. These
verses cannot be later than ninth century before Christian era
The Hindus quickly reclaimed the verse. Swami Vivekananda wrote"The being was perceived as one and the same. It was the perceives who makes the
difference.... Before the Mohammadean invasion, it was never known what religious
persecution was.... All that we owe to this one verse"
Source: The complete works of swami Vivekananda
Aurobindo reiterated the idea and launched a scathing attack on "polytheists" and
"Europeans"

"Here Dayananda's view is quite clear, its foundation inexpugnable. The Vedic hymns are
chanted to the one Deity under many names which are used and even designed to express
his qualities and powers. The Vedic rishis ought surely to have known something about their
own religion, more, let us hope than Roth or Max Muller and this is what they knew...We are
aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence. This hymn they say was a late
production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the
later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers,
sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies. But throughout
the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is
expressly hymned as one with all the other gods. Agni contains all other divine powers
within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names
of others as well as his own, or most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the
universe, attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity. Ah, But that cannot mean, ought
not to mean, the worship of One; let us invent a new word, call it henotheism(coined by Max
Muller) and suppose that the Rishis did not really believe Indra or Agni to be the Supreme
Deity but treated any god or every god as such for the nonce, perhaps that he might feel the
more flattered and lend a more gracious ear for so hyperbolic a compliment! "But why
should not the foundation of Vedic thought be natural monotheism rather than this newfangled monstrosity of henotheism?" Well, because primitive barbarians could not possibly
have risen to such high conceptions and, if you allow them to have so risen, you imperil
our(western) theory of the evolutionary stage of the human development and you destroy
our whole idea about the sense of the Vedic hymns and their place in the history of
mankind... Immediately the whole character of the Veda is fixed in the sense Dayananda
gave to it; the merely ritual, mythological, polytheistic interpretation of Sayana collapses,
the merely meteorological and naturalistic European interpretation collapses. We have
instead a real Scripture, one of the world's sacred books and the divine word of a lofty and
noble religion"
Source: Aurobindo, World perspectives on swami Dayananda Saraswati Page 146
A few remarks are in order. Here, Sri Aurobindo used the term "polytheist" in a derogatory
manner. He also explicitly stated that monotheism was superior to "sun worship..sky
worship..fire worship". He criticized the "ritualistic, mythological" interpretation of Sayana
on equal footing with "naturalistic" European interpretation. Monotheism was, in his words
"high conception". Why?

Sri Aurobindo

During this period, the Christians had indulged in a full invective against Hinduism. To be
sure, anti-polytheist and anti-idolatrous ideologies of Islamic age ruled the roost prior to
this period and many Hindus internalized these thoughts. Against this background emerged
the Christian attacks on Hinduism as "polytheist" or "Idolatrous". These invectives had
been ingrained deeply into the psyche of the society by the popular nirguni bhakti poems.
That "polytheism is a vice" was a ubiquitously accepted stand. Consider the below statement
of Angarika Dharmapala(c.1900 AD), Srilankan Buddhist Theravada monk and a personal
friend of Vivekananda
"Christianity and polytheism are responsible for the vulgar practices of killing animals,
stealing, prostitution, licentiousness, lying and drunkenness"
Source: Dharmapala, History of ancient civilizations
The "polytheism" used in a very derogatory manner in this quote was actually a reference to
Hinduism. If such was the parlance of Buddhists used towards "polytheistic Hinduism", one
could well imagine what invectives Christians would have hurled. Polytheism and idolatry
were universally considered vices, and such attitude was deeply ingrained in the newly
emerging native catholic schooled Indian scholars. This environment led to genesis of sects
such as Arya samaj and Brahmo samaj. Swami vivekanada and Aurobindo did not question
the roots and history of monotheism, which they themselves partly interiorised. It must be
remembered that they were not privy to vast scholarly literature and bloody history of
monotheism which are available to us today. Thus, they had no intention to strike at the
roots of monotheism. Instead, they busied themselves in an easier and more important task
of rescuing Hinduism by disassociating it with idolatry and polytheism. In such a scenario,
this verse"ekam sad", rediscovered by Christians who were keen to push their monotheism
into antiquity and attack medieval Hinduism, came in very handy and was readily adopted
by Hindus. It elucidated the "original" character of Hinduism as "noble monotheism". These
Hindu reformists then argued that later Hinduism lapsed into polytheism and idolatry out
of ignorance. The Arya Samajis also got into swift action and started using this phrase to
back up their monotheistic ideology. They translated "ekam sat" as "one God", in
accordance with their claims.
Otherwise, it could well be argued that ritualism and polytheism is the essence of Rgveda.
Rgveda 8.30(said to be recited by Manu himself) says 'not one of you is small. not one of you
is feeble.All of you are verily great.Thus be you lauded, you thirty-three deities'. The ritual
context is apparent in verses such as 'Adhvaryus, be ye ready with oblations..Go to the
reservoir, O ye Adhvaryus worship Apam Napat'(Rgveda 10.30). Infact, it is explicitly clear
from the text that a large number of Rgvedic hymns were composed on the ritual ground
While the Hindu reformists continued to use this phrase to project Hinduism as a
monotheistic religion, Indo-secularists came into action by attributing their version of
"secularism" to it. This is especially true after independence as 'monotheism' fell out of
fashion and 'secularism' came into fashion. Sarvepalli Radhakrishna and DS Sharma used
the phrase in support of Gandhi's sarva dharma sama bhava.

"His idea of swaraj,is only an expression in political terms of the Hindu doctrine 'ekam sad
vipra bahuda vadanti"
Source: Gandhi, edited by sarvepalli Radhakrisha
The truth, however, is that Gandhi's 'sarva dharma sama bhava' is a spurious phrase which
is not found anywhere. It was coined by Gandhi himself to support his equally spurious
concept of secularism. Sarvapalli radhakrishna strived to fabricate a vedic background for
Gandhis spurious claims, and had but to subvert the essence of 'ekam sad'
The phrase continues to be in use by staunch congress Indo-secularists such as Mani
Shankar Aiyar(Rajiv Gandhis India:1998) and Shashi Tharoor
Recently, the phrase has acquired another meaning. On November 30 2015, India's Prime
Minister Narendra Modi declared that his 'idea of india' is "ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti".
It seems now that the verse also comes in handy for BJP secularists who are desperate to
prove their secularism to Indo-secularists
In conclusion, it could be said that the usage of this verse provides great insights into the
history of changing political and religious discourse in India. It has been subject to ritualist,
monist, monotheist, Indo-secularist and 'Hindutvo-secularist' interpretations according to
the given day