Hindu Sectarian Infighting

Ancient Origins: The conflict between Shaivism and Vaishnavism emerged during the Gupta period (4th-6th centuries CE) when both traditions began asserting their respective deities as supreme. Initially, Vaishnavism gained prominence under the Gupta kings, who were “Parama Bhagavatas or Bhagavata Vaishnavas and had been ardent promoters of Vaishnavism”. However, following the Huna invasions around 500 CE, “the effect of discrediting Vaishnavism” led newly arising regional powers to prefer adopting Shaivism instead.¹

Medieval Intensification: The conflict reached its peak during the medieval period, with some regions experiencing violent confrontations. In Tamil Nadu, a well-documented case occurred in Tirumeyyam village near Pudukottai, where a cave temple complex housed shrines for both Shiva and Vishnu. By the 13th century, “the 7th year of the rule of Maravarman Sundara Pandya II (1245 CE),” administrative intervention was required to resolve sectarian disputes between local Shaiva and Vaishnava communities.²

Supreme Deity Disputes: The fundamental disagreement centers on which deity represents the ultimate reality. Shaivism regards “Shiva as the Supreme Reality, embodying the essence of Yoga and granting knowledge that leads to Mukti”. Conversely, Vaishnavism depicts “Vishnu as a powerful deity whose very breath creates and dissolves universes” and emphasizes “Bhakti, or devotion, as the sole means to connect with Vishnu”.³

Scriptural Polemics: Both traditions produced texts that explicitly criticized the other. The Bhagavata Purana condemns Shaivism, stating that those who follow Shiva “are haters and hypocrites of the true scriptures” and advises people to “abandon the fierce Idols of Shiva and meditate on the calm Arts of Narayan Vishnu”. Similarly, Shaiva texts respond by declaring that “if a shavite indulges in sinful Deeds cruel and even if he is void of his ashram religion he is superior to thousands of vaishnavas”.⁴

Mythology and Divine Hierarchy: The Puranas of each tradition often portray the opposing deity in subordinate roles. Vaishnava texts sometimes attempt to “downplay the importance of Shaivism, portraying Shiva as a lesser being or even a demigod,” while Shaiva literature reciprocates with similar characterizations of Vishnu.⁵

Regional Variations: The intensity of conflict varied significantly across regions. According to one analysis, “North was predominantly Vaishnavite and Shaivism was predominant South of Vindyas,” though “in southern parts there were plenty of clashes” while northern conflicts were less documented.⁶

Violence and Persecution: Historical records document severe persecution between sects. One notable case involved “a cruel king claiming to be Shaiva who gouged out the eyes of one of Sri Ramanujacharya’s disciples, because he refused to accept that Siva was superior to Narayana”. Such incidents reflect how theological differences escalated to physical violence.⁷

Contemporary Tensions: Modern sectarian tensions persist, though in more subdued forms. As one observer noted about a Mahashivarathri celebration, Vaishnava singers “did not care that the occasion was Shiva’s festival and was meant for him” but instead sang “mostly the bhajans of Vishnu,” reflecting ongoing partiality.⁸

Nature of Ultimate Reality: Advaita Vedanta, established by Adi Shankaracharya (788-820 CE), asserts that “Atman (individual soul) and Brahman (ultimate reality) are identical” and that “the perception of individuality is due to ignorance (Avidya)”. Dvaita Vedanta, developed by Madhvacharya (1238-1317 CE), counters that “Atman and Brahman are eternally different” and “souls are dependent on God and can never merge into Him”.⁹

Status of the Phenomenal World: Advaita maintains that “the world we perceive is not absolutely real; it is a projection of Maya, a mysterious power that creates the appearance of duality”. Dvaita rejects this entirely, arguing that “the world is real, created by Vishnu, and sustained by Him” and that Maya is “not a cosmic illusion; instead, creation is real and meaningful”.¹⁰

Crypto-Buddhist Allegations: Madhvacharya and other critics accused Shankaracharya of being a “Prachanna Bauddha, or ‘crypto-Buddhist,’” claiming his philosophy undermined “theistic Bhakti devotionalism”. These accusations suggested that Advaita shared “non-theistic doctrines with Buddhism” and weakened traditional Hindu devotional practices.¹¹

Scriptural Authority Disputes: Both schools claimed exclusive access to proper Vedic interpretation. Madhvacharya emphasized that “Never accept any human as authority. Humans are subject to error and deception” while positioning his own interpretation as divinely inspired. Shankaracharya supporters countered by establishing “four major monastic centers (mathas) in India to preserve Advaita philosophy”.¹²¹³

Modern Sectarian Identity: The philosophical divide continues to influence modern Hindu identity formation. As one contemporary commentator noted, “As a certified non-dualistic Vaishnava, I find that I share a greater philosophical alignment with a dualist or qualified non-dualist who reveres Shiva than with a strict non-dualist who worships Vishnu”.¹⁴

Institutional Conflicts: Different Vedanta schools maintain separate institutional hierarchies, with Smartas following the Shankaracharyas while other traditions maintain independent spiritual authorities.¹⁵

Panchayatana Puja Innovation: Shankaracharya introduced the “Panchayatana Puja – worship of five principal deities together: Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti (Devi), Surya, and Ganesha” to heal sectarian divisions. This practice directly challenged traditions that claimed supremacy for individual deities.¹⁶

Philosophical Opposition: Traditional sectarian communities resisted Smarta integration. As noted in medieval scholarship, “Vedanta Desika and Vallabhacharya recognized Smarta as competing with Vaishnavism and other traditions”, indicating ongoing theological tensions.¹⁷

Contemporary Challenges: Modern Smartism faces criticism for alleged Brahmanical orthodoxy. Critics argue that “Smartas are usually committed to a ‘relatively unified Hinduism’” while rejecting “extreme forms of sectarian isolationism”, creating friction with more exclusivist traditions.¹⁸

Divine Feminine Supremacy: Shaktism asserts that “the goddess is regarded as the cosmos—she embodies energy, matter, and soul, the motivating force behind all action and existence in the material universe”. This directly challenges traditions that prioritize male deities.¹⁹

Social Integration Challenges: Despite philosophical differences, “All the male sects (Vaishnavism and Shaivism) still give precedence to Shakti in the form of the wife of the main deity”, creating complex theological accommodations rather than outright conflicts.²⁰

Modern Sectarian Harmony: Contemporary Shaktism demonstrates remarkable syncretism, with practitioners noting that “Historically (like in Medieval India), there have been conflicts between Vaishnavites and Shaivites particularly in the south, but in modern times that’s nonexistent”.²¹

Vedic Orthodoxy: Traditional Vedic practitioners maintain that authentic Hindu practice must derive from Vedic sources and follow established ritual protocols. They view Tantric practices as departures from orthodox tradition.

Tantric Claims to Superiority: Tantric texts explicitly claim superiority over Vedic practices. The Mahanirvanatantra states that for practitioners in the current age, “there is no purification through Vedic rituals”, directly challenging Vedic authority.²²

Historical Synthesis: Scholars note that “Tantric teachings were assimilated into Vedic and Brahmanic teachings and writings at an early age,” resulting in a complex synthetic tradition where “present day Hinduism is almost entirely based on tantra”.²³

Ritual Practices: Tantric traditions often employ “substances and practices that are normally considered impure by orthodox moral standards,” including the infamous “five Ms” (meat, fish, wine, parched grain, and sexual intercourse). Orthodox Vedic practitioners condemn these practices as violations of dharmic principles.²⁴

Social Acceptability: The integration of Tantric practices into mainstream Hinduism created ongoing tension between “right-handed (dakshinachara) and left-handed (vamacharara) traditions,” where conservatives take Tantric symbolism metaphorically while radicals practice it literally.²⁵

12th Century Rebellion: Founded by Basavanna in the 12th century, Veerashaivism emerged as “a religion of dissent” that fundamentally challenged orthodox Hindu practices. The movement “summarily rejected the Brahmanic idea of worshipping deities and doing good in order to go to heaven”.²⁶

Anti-Establishment Ideology: Unlike reform movements that sought to purify existing traditions, Veerashaivism was “an anti-establishment movement” that “militantly opposed Jainism, the religion that dominated Karnataka in the 12th-13th centuries”. Historical evidence shows “large-scale destruction of Jain basadis (temples)” as part of Veerashaiva expansion.²⁷

Religious Separation Movement: Modern Lingayats continue to assert separate religious identity, with recent movements demanding “separate, minority religion status” from Hinduism. This campaign reflects the community’s historical “opposition to dominant Brahmanical Hindu traditions”.²⁸

Internal Community Divisions: The movement faces internal splits between “Lingayats and Veerashaivas,” with different factions disagreeing about their relationship to Hinduism. While some “consider themselves separate from the Veerashaivas,” others “asserted that Lingayats and Veerashaivas are the same and are separate from Hindus”.²⁹

Political Instrumentalization: Contemporary sectarian identity has become heavily politicized, with the “BJP and the Congress” joining “to heavily politicise the demand” for separate religious status.³⁰

The medieval Vijayanagara Empire witnessed complex sectarian negotiations and conflicts that shaped South Indian religious landscape.

Royal Patronage Politics: The Sangama kings of Vijayanagara provided “generous patronage” to Veerashaivism, but “the patronage came at the cost of the religion’s fundamental tenets”. This created tensions within the Veerashaiva community about maintaining doctrinal purity versus gaining political support.³¹

Temple Appropriation: Veerashaiva expansion involved not only theological debate but physical appropriation of rival religious sites. The “Megudi temple in Hallur and the Doddappa Temple at Adargunchi, Karnataka stand testimony to the radical way in which Veerashaivism wrested power from Jainism”.³²

Coastal Karnataka as ‘Hindutva Laboratory’: Modern Karnataka demonstrates how sectarian identity intersects with political movements. The coastal region has earned the title of “southern India’s ‘Hindutva laboratory’” where “Hindu right-wing factions would assault and lynch any Muslim male under the pretense” of protecting Hindu interests.³³

Caste and Sectarian Intersection: The Billava community has become “the enforcers of Hindutva” in coastal Karnataka, where “being labeled as Hindus and granted space and responsibility by upper castes has led to unwavering loyalty to the Hindutva movement”.³⁴

Harihara Unity Concept: Modern Hindu thought has developed synthetic concepts like “Harihara (half Shiva, half Vishnu deity)” to bridge sectarian divides. This theological innovation suggests that “Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva stand as colossal figures, each commanding immense devotion” but ultimately represent unified divinity.³⁵

Scholarly Reconciliation: Contemporary scholars attempt to minimize sectarian differences by arguing that apparent conflicts stem from “semantics of language and expression” rather than fundamental theological differences. Some propose that “maybe it is we who are arguing on semantics, Both are right”.³⁶

Digital Age Sectarianism: Modern technology has amplified sectarian conflicts, with social media platforms becoming venues for inter-sectarian criticism. Recent examples include ISKCON representatives making controversial statements about Shiva’s status, leading to widespread online criticism.³⁷

Institutional Competition: Different sectarian traditions maintain separate institutional hierarchies, educational systems, and ritual practices, perpetuating theological and practical divisions despite calls for unity.

Sectarian Education Systems: Different Hindu sects maintain separate educational institutions, creating parallel knowledge systems that sometimes contradict each other’s theological positions.

Cultural Festival Conflicts: Sectarian tensions manifest in cultural celebrations where communities prioritize their chosen deities over others, reflecting ongoing theological preferences and social identities.