What in the Hindu renaissance was incomplete and
prevented it, first of all, from seizing the minds of India? This is
an important question that must be considered. Certainly its early
leaders like Vivekananda and Aurobindo charted out the proper course
to follow, but their vision was not properly put into action and
later teachers moved away from any revival of the ancient Dharma to
positions that were more politically correct and acceptable in the
modern world with its anti-Hindu sentiments.
The Hindu renaissance, after a good beginning, did
not remain self-confidently Vedic, Hindu or even Bharatiya (Indian).
It less and less aimed at projecting Vedic Dharma for the benefit of
the world and gradually developed a more religiously neutral
presentation. There were notable exceptions to this trend, we might
add, but these did not determine what transpired, particularly on a
national level in India.
The Hindu renaissance, after a strong beginning,
became vaguely and often apologetically universal. It was Hindu more
in background than in expression, and outwardly became willing to
mix with itself whatever appeared mystical in any religion. Hindu
teachers, particularly after the independence of the country, less
and less explained that they were propounding the principles of
Vedic or Sanatana Dharma, or gave much emphasis to the fact that
they were Hindus. They did little directly to encourage respect for
Vedic traditions or to counter prevalent distortions about Hinduism.