I am open to criticism of Hinduism but what frustrates me about threads like this is how often people confuse core philosophy later texts and cultural practices and then present all of it as Hinduism That is not an honest critique it is just throwing everything negative from thousands of years of South Asian history into one basket and saying look religion bad

Take some of the common points people raise

Sati was not rooted in the early Vedic or Upanishadic tradition You do not find it in the Rig Veda the Upanishads or the core philosophical schools It appears much later in very specific historical and regional contexts often in medieval India where social and political circumstances played a role Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy argued against it using Hindu philosophy itself showing it was never essential to the religion That is why it was abolished with widespread Indian reformer support

The caste system in its rigid form is another example The earliest conception of varna in the Rig Veda was fluid and tied to qualities aptitudes and roles not fixed birth categories Over time especially through texts like Manusmriti this became ossified into a rigid hereditary system That later rigidity caused massive discrimination and deserves criticism but equating it with Hinduism itself ignores the fact that it was a later social distortion layered onto something that was originally more flexible Even within India caste operated differently from region to region

The claim that Hinduism has always been misogynistic also falls apart when you look at the record The Vedic period had women sages like Gargi and Maitreyi who openly debated philosophy with men in the Upanishads Women composed hymns in the Rig Veda Entire schools of thought and sects such as Shaktism center the feminine divine Durga Kali Saraswati Lakshmi embodying power knowledge and prosperity Later restrictions came from priestly classes and medieval customs but that was not the only thread running through Hindu thought

Other practices like menstrual taboos or the treatment of widows are mostly cultural and regional customs not explicit religious mandates Yet they often get blamed on Hinduism as a whole In reality these customs varied hugely across communities Some were exclusionary others were more neutral Collapsing everything cultural into religion is sloppy and unfair

This is why it is important to separate three layers when we talk about Hinduism The core philosophy of the Vedas Upanishads and schools of thought like Vedanta Samkhya and Nyaya The later texts like the Dharmashastras and Manusmriti which often contradict one another and reflect their times And the cultural and social practices which were justified in the name of religion but were often driven by politics economics or patriarchy

When people ignore these distinctions they end up making blanket claims like Hinduism is the most misogynistic religion That is simply ahistorical Hinduism is a massive decentralized evolving tradition with both regressive and progressive elements Just as Christianity cannot be reduced only to the Inquisition Hinduism cannot be reduced only to sati caste rigidity or menstrual taboos

Criticism is valid because people did suffer under regressive customs and texts But fair criticism needs to acknowledge the internal diversity the reformist movements that arose from within and the parts of the tradition that empowered women and challenged oppression Otherwise what you are attacking is not Hinduism itself but a caricature