Before colonial rule, the Indian understanding of dharma was context-sensitive. It was not a fixed moral code or a universal list of dos and don’ts, but a living framework that balanced justice, compassion, truth, and nīti (practical wisdom).

Dharma was never about blind rule-following. It required discernment.

Yudhishthira speaks a half-truth during the war.

Duryodhana refuses to give even five villages to the Pandavas, despite a clear agreement after their exile.

They illustrate that dharma was judged by context, intent, and consequence, not by rigid labels of right and wrong.

Colonial Reframing of Dharma

British colonial administration did not merely misunderstand dharma; it reframed it through a legalistic and Christian moral lens. Sanskrit texts were translated by scholars such as Sir William Jones and Max Müller in ways that equated dharma with “religion” or “law,” flattening its interpretive depth.

Colonial governance incentivized moral frameworks that favored predictability and obedience over contextual judgment. Ethical traditions that allowed questioning authority, civil resistance, or situational reasoning as seen in the Mahabharata or the Arthashastra were administratively inconvenient.

After the 1857 rebellion, this framing became clearer. Indians who complied with colonial authority were praised as “moral” and “civilized,” while revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh were labeled “immoral” or “violent,” not because they lacked ethics, but because they challenged power.

The British also selectively privileged a narrow set of texts, most notably the Manusmriti, because it appeared rigid, easily quotable, and compatible with a codified legal system. In doing so, they often overrode local customs, oral traditions, and contextual interpretations that had governed everyday life for centuries.

Separation of Morality and Governance

In the Arthashastra, ethics and statecraft are inseparable. Moral reasoning is embedded in decisions about power, justice, taxation, punishment, and welfare.

Colonial governance deliberately separated these domains:

“Be spiritual, moral, and peaceful, but leave politics, justice, and power to us.”

This separation produced a lasting stereotype:

“Hindus are spiritual, but not practical.”

Morality was pushed into the private and personal sphere, while governance and decision-making were framed as “rational” and external. Dharma lost its role as a guide for action and became a tool for compliance.

Post-Colonial Moral Residue

Many features of post-colonial Indian morality reflect this distortion:

  • Rigid, context-insensitive rules
  • Passive acceptance of suffering (“it’s my karma”)
  • Morality reduced to endurance rather than judgment
  • Guilt associated with ambition or assertiveness

These patterns are visible in everyday life.

A woman who points out a genuine flaw in a workplace meeting may be subtly discouraged—not because she is wrong, but because she violates an unspoken rule about how women are expected to behave. Morality here is less about truth or outcomes and more about conformity.

Similarly, karma is often invoked to normalize avoidable suffering. A worker who is underpaid or mistreated is advised to “accept his fate,” shifting responsibility away from institutions and onto the individual. Karma, originally a concept describing the relationship between action and consequence, is inverted into a moral anesthetic that discourages questioning or reform.

Ambition and assertiveness are also moralized in ways that induce guilt, especially among women or those from lower-status backgrounds. Wanting fair pay, refusing exploitation, or seeking mobility is subtly framed as greed or moral weakness. People are encouraged to work hard and comply, but discouraged from demanding fairness or accountability.

At the core of these patterns lies a morality that equates virtue with endurance. A student mistreated by a teacher is told to adjust rather than question authority. An employee facing abuse is advised to tolerate rather than confront. Discernment, asking whether an action is just, effective, or harmful is replaced by silent compliance.

Over time, this trains individuals to suppress judgment and accept dysfunction as normal.

The common thread is that morality is applied downward, as discipline for the powerless, rather than upward, as restraint on those in power.

Dharma and Discernment (Gita 2.50)

Bhagavad Gita 2.50 states:

“Buddhi-yukto jahātīha ubhe sukṛta-duṣkṛte;
Tasmād yogāya yujyasva—yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam.”

One endowed with discernment (buddhi) relinquishes fixation on moral bookkeeping on good-done and bad-done and acts with intelligence. Such clarity in action is called yoga: skillfulness in action.

Actions do not carry moral value in isolation. Their ethical character emerges from intent, context, and consequence. Treating anything as inherently “good” or “bad” bypasses judgment rather than exercising it.

How can excellence in action exist without discernment?

Real dharma = think critically + acting skillfully
Folk dharma = obeying quietly + calling it “samarpan”

References

  1. Derrett, J. Duncan M. - Religion, Law and the State in India (1968)
  2. King, Richard - Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and The Mystic East (1999)
  3. Sharma, Arvind - Dharma: The Hindu Ethical Concept and Its Colonial Distortion (2002) (Note: The title “Dharma: The Hindu Ethical Concept and Its Colonial Distortion” is not a verified publication. This JSTOR article by Sharma addresses the same core ideas.)
  4. Jijoy Mathew - Colonial and Indian Making
  5. Dirks, Nicholas B. - Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (2001)
  6. Ambedkar, B.R. - Annihilation of Caste (1936)
  7. Thapar, Romila - “The Image of Ancient India” (in Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, 2002)
  8. Chatterjee, Partha - The Nation and Its Fragments (1993)
  9. Nandy, Ashis - The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism (1983)
  10. Mani, Lata - Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India (1998)
  11. Metcalf, Barbara & Thomas Metcalf – A Concise History of Modern India (2006)
  12. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay – Caste, Culture and Hegemony (2004)