The biggest irony in Indian society

Traditional Indian society today, is marked by its lack of objectivity. The society is divided into different communities and religions, with communal or religious identity overriding individual opinions in almost all walks of life. 

Even within Hinduism or the dharmic culture, there are so many subcultures and philosophies, each of which often live in entrenched clusters, sometimes to the exclusion of the other. Its adherents often argue and fight with one another-- at a personal level--  on things like how specific festivals are to be celebrated, what kinds of food to eat, which deity to pray, and so on. 

This is this biggest irony of Indian society today. This is because, the core philosophy of Indian thought is based on observing the objective nature of our self to our experience. Right from the Vedas and the Upanishads and including Sramanic philosophies like Buddhism and Jainism, there is a fundamental acknowledgment about how our "Self" is different from everything that we experience or think or feel or believe. The different philosophies differ based on differences of opinion about the implications of this fundamental postulate. 

In fact, the term used for "philosophy" in Indian thought is "darshana" which means "perspective". And if someone were to embody a philosophy and "religiously" practice it, they are said to be of that particular "mata" (मत), which means "opinion". The term used for "religion" in Indian languages is the same term used for "opinion" or "vote". Religion is viewed no more than an opinion, and philosophy is viewed no more than a perspective! Can it get any more liberal than this? 

The true nature of our being is beyond opinions and perspectives. Philosophies only help in guiding us and give a framework of reasoning-- but then, as is stressed again and again in just about every philosophical treatise-- we are not our framework of reasoning, nor the opinions that we embody. 

The Chandogya Upanishad for example, tells the story of "two golden birds perched on the self-same tree"-- our "Ego" and our "Self". The Ego is the experiencer-- it engages with the world and eats its bitter-sweet fruits, while the Self is the dispassionate witness. The Ego wishes to fly high and achieve things, but it is also tethered to the tree on which the Self resides. So, no matter how high it flies or what it achieves, it keeps coming back to the Self, which is but a dispassionate witness and its unchanging nature. The tree represents the "Universal Self" called the "Brahman" which is the only reality there is.

In its experience, the Ego may embody several opinions, and feel several emotions. It may even believe itself to be the Self. But all the while, it is only tethered to the dispassionate witness, who is not experiencing life, but witnessing it. 

How is it that a culture whose fundamentals are based on understanding the objective nature of our experience, become fragmented into different ideologies-- so much so that it was neatly vulnerable to divide-and-conquer strategies from external adversaries? Even today, the fault lines are sharp and are subject to immense battery to dismember different darshanas from the core philosophy, and present it as "not a part of Hinduism" or something such. How is it that a culture that once called "religion" as "opinion" today be associated with caste system, patriarchy and segregation? A good study of history needs to be in the form of a sincere effort to answer this question.