Walk into any bookstore in India or abroad and you’ll find shelves labeled “Hindu Mythology.” Browse online retailers, and algorithms will cheerfully recommend “Books on Hindu Mythology” alongside Greek myths and Norse legends. Search for “Ramayana” or “Mahabharata,” and you’ll see them categorized under, you guessed it “Hindu Mythology.”
This seems normal. Natural, even. It’s how we’ve always talked about these narratives, isn’t it?
Except it’s not.
The term “Hindu mythology” is barely 200 years old. It was not created by Hindus. It was not chosen by the people who preserved the Ramayana and Mahabharata for thousands of years. It was imposed by British colonial scholars as part of a systematic project to delegitimize Indian civilization.
And we’ve internalized it so completely that most Indians even devout Hindus use the term without question.
This is what successful colonization looks like. Not just the conquest of land, but the conquest of language, categories, and thought itself.
After years of excavating narratives that have been buried by colonial and patriarchal frameworks, I’ve learned this: the battle over what we call our sacred narratives isn’t semantic pedantry. It’s a battle for civilizational memory.
So let me tell you why “Hindu mythology” is a colonial term, how it functions to undermine Indian knowledge systems, and what we should say instead.
The Colonial Origins of ‘Hindu Mythology’
When ‘Hindu’ Became a Religious Category
First, understand this: the word “Hindu” is not indigenous to India.
It derives from “Sindhu,” the Sanskrit name for the Indus River. Persian speakers, who couldn’t pronounce the “S” sound, called it “Hindu.” By the medieval period, “Hindu” was a geographical term for people living beyond the Indus River.
It had nothing to do with religion.
When Mughal rulers used “Hindu,” they meant “not Muslim” , a catchall for the diverse religious and philosophical traditions of the subcontinent. Buddhists, Jains, Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Shaktas, and countless local traditions were all lumped together as “Hindu” for administrative convenience.
But it was the British who transformed “Hindu” from a geographical-cultural descriptor into a religious category modeled on Christianity.
The Colonial Project to Categorize India
When the British East India Company began expanding its control over India in the 18th century, it faced an administrative problem: how do you govern millions of people whose social organization doesn’t fit European categories?
The solution was to impose those categories by force.
British colonists starting in the 17th century adopted “Hindu” to refer to residents of India as a religious community, and by the 19th century, colonial scholars had created the category of “Hinduism” as a unified religion analogous to Christianity.
This wasn’t a neutral scholarship. It was governance through knowledge.
Colonial administrator Thomas Babington Macaulay articulated the goal explicitly in his infamous 1835 “Minute on Education”:
“I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic… A single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia… We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”
The project was clear: create an Indian elite that would see their own civilization through European eyes. And a crucial part of that project was linguistics.
Why They Called It ‘Mythology’
Once “Hinduism” was constructed as a religion, its texts needed to be categorized.
And here’s where “mythology” entered the picture.
In European scholarship, “mythology” was reserved for narratives from dead civilizations Greek, Roman, Norse whose religious power had been neutralized. These were stories you could study academically without threatening Christian truth claims.
By labeling Indian texts as “Hindu mythology,” British scholars accomplished several things at once:
1. Denial of historicity. The Sanskrit term for the Ramayana and Mahabharata is NOT “mythology.” It’s Itihasa, meaning “it happened thus.” But colonial scholars rejected this indigenous framework. If something was “mythology,” it wasn’t history. End of discussion.
2. Denial of philosophical seriousness. “Mythology” suggested primitive attempts to explain the world before science. The sophisticated metaphysics of the Upanishads, the ethical philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita, the epistemology of Nyaya all reduced to “mythological speculation.”
3. Creation of hierarchy. Christianity had “scripture,” “theology,” and “divine revelation.” Hinduism had “mythology,” “superstition,” and “idol worship.” The linguistic framing made the hierarchy feel natural, inevitable.
4. Alienation from living practitioners. When you label their sacred history “mythology,” you’re telling them: “Your foundational beliefs are fiction. The figures you worship never existed. Your civilization’s memory is a fairy tale.”
This wasn’t accidental. It was epistemic colonization, the conquest of how knowledge is categorized and valued.
How ‘Hindu Mythology’ Functions as Colonial Language
The genius of colonial categories is that they don’t need military enforcement once they’re internalized. Indians police the categories themselves.
Let me show you how “Hindu mythology” continues to function as colonial language:
It Creates a Double Standard
Biblical tales are legends and of historical significance while everything else is mythology. As such, the term Christian mythology is almost never used in popular discourse.
Think about it:
- Nobody says “Christian mythology” when discussing Jesus’s miracles
- We don’t call the parting of the Red Sea “Jewish mythology”
- Islamic narratives about Muhammad’s night journey aren’t “Islamic mythology”
But Rama defeated Ravana? “Hindu mythology.” Krishna lifting Govardhan? “Hindu mythology.” Durga slaying Mahishasura? “Hindu mythology.”
The double standard reveals the bias. Western and Abrahamic traditions get the dignity of “sacred history” or “scripture.” Indian traditions get “mythology” with all its connotations of falsehood.
It Flattens Philosophical Depth
When everything is “mythology,” distinctions collapse.
The Vedas (philosophical hymns) = “Hindu mythology” The Upanishads (metaphysical philosophy) = “Hindu mythology” The Puranas (cosmological theology) = “Hindu mythology” The Itihasas (epic narratives) = “Hindu mythology” The Tantras (ritual and yogic texts) = “Hindu mythology”
These are radically different genres with different purposes, methods, and truth claims. But “Hindu mythology” flattens them all into a single category: “stories Hindus tell.”
The flattening erases intellectual traditions. It makes sophisticated philosophy invisible.
It Undermines Living Faith
Here’s the most insidious function: “Hindu mythology” is normalized even among Hindus themselves.
I’ve met Indian parents who teach their children “Hindu mythology” as if it were the proper term. I’ve seen Hindu scholars use “mythology” in academic papers without irony. I’ve watched devotees describe their own beliefs as “mythological” because that’s the category they learned in school.
This is internalized colonization. When you’ve absorbed the colonizer’s categories so completely that you use them to describe your own sacred narratives, colonization is complete.
It doesn’t require British soldiers anymore. It runs on autopilot.
What They Took From Us: Itihasa and Purana
So if “Hindu mythology” is colonial imposition, what did Indians call these narratives before the British arrived?
Two key terms: Itihasa and Purana.
Itihasa: “It Happened Thus”
Itihasa (इतिहास) is the Sanskrit term for the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
It breaks down as:
- Iti = thus
- Ha = indeed
- Asa = it was
Literally: “Thus indeed it was” or “It happened thus.”
This is not the same as Western “history” in the sense of empirically verifiable chronicle. But it’s also not “fiction” or “myth.” It’s a third category that doesn’t fit neatly into Western binaries.
Itihasa says: this narrative preserves something that happened. It may be elaborated with poetic language, philosophical discourse, and symbolic elements. But at its core is an event that shaped our civilization.
When you replace “Itihasa” with “mythology,” you erase this indigenous framework. You force a complex tradition into a Western category that doesn’t fit.
Purana: “Ancient Knowledge”
Purana (पुराण) means “ancient” or “old knowledge.”
The eighteen Mahapuranas and countless Upapuranas are not “myth” in the sense of “made-up stories.” They’re theological, cosmological, and philosophical texts that use narrative form to convey truths about the nature of reality, the relationship between divine and human, and the structure of existence.
The Devi Bhagavata Purana, for instance, is not “mythology about the Goddess.” It’s a systematic theology that positions Devi as supreme reality, complete with metaphysical arguments, ritual instructions, and philosophical discourse.
Calling it “mythology” obscures its function. It’s like calling Aquinas’s Summa Theologica “Christian mythology” technically you could argue it fits the category, but you’d be missing the point entirely.
Why These Terms Matter
Itihasa and Purana represent Indian frameworks for categorizing knowledge. They don’t map neatly onto Western categories of “history,” “mythology,” “theology,” or “philosophy.”
And that’s fine. Different civilizations can have different epistemologies.
But when we abandon these terms in favor of “Hindu mythology,” we’re not just switching languages. We’re accepting that only Western categories are legitimate frameworks for understanding knowledge.
We’re saying: European ways of organizing thought are universal, and Indian ways are parochial.
That’s colonization.
The Ongoing Harm of Colonial Categories
You might think: “This happened 200 years ago. Why does it still matter?”
Because the frameworks still shape how Indians think about their own civilization.
Erosion of Cultural Confidence
When young Indians grow up learning that their traditions are “Hindu mythology,” they internalize a hierarchy.
Greek mythology? Interesting. Classical. Foundational to Western civilization.
Hindu mythology? Quaint. Backward. Something to outgrow as you become “modern.”
Many Indians have internalized the colonial framework, leading to a generation that knows more about Zeus than Vishnu, more about Thor than Shiva.
Not because Greek narratives are inherently more interesting. But because “classical mythology” sounds like legitimate knowledge, while “Hindu mythology” sounds like superstition.
The linguistic framing shapes perception.
Intellectual Colonization Persists
The categories created by colonial scholars still dominate Indian academia.
University departments teach “Hindu Mythology” as if it were a neutral descriptor. Textbooks uncritically use the term. Even Indian scholars writing about their own traditions adopt colonial language because that’s the language of “serious” scholarship.
This is what Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o called “colonizing the mind” the most effective form of domination because it makes the colonized police themselves.
The ‘Hindu Mythology’ Industry
Perhaps most perversely, “Hindu mythology” has become a commercial category.
Publishers market books as “Hindu Mythology” because that’s what sells to Western audiences and westernized Indians. Authors write “Hindu mythology for children” as if it were educational. Television shows are marketed as “mythological serials.”
Everyone profits from the colonial category. And every use reinforces it.
What We Should Say Instead
So if “Hindu mythology” is problematic, what should we say?
Here are alternatives that respect indigenous frameworks:
Use Indigenous Terms
Instead of: “Hindu mythology” Use: “Itihasa and Purana” or “Hindu sacred narratives” or “Dharmic narratives”
Instead of: “Hindu mythological characters” Use: “Figures from Itihasa” or “Divine incarnations” or “Epic heroes”
Instead of: “Mythological serial” Use: “Itihasa adaptation” or “Devotional series” or “Epic television series”
Be Specific About Genre
Rather than lumping everything under “mythology,” specify:
- “The Vedas” (philosophical hymns)
- “The Upanishads” (metaphysical philosophy)
- “The Itihasas” (Ramayana, Mahabharata)
- “The Puranas” (theological-cosmological texts)
- “The Agamas and Tantras” (ritual and yogic texts)
Precision honors the complexity of the tradition.
Acknowledge Living Faith
When discussing narratives that are sacred to living practitioners, use language that respects that:
Instead of: “The myth of Rama” Use: “The narrative of Rama in the Ramayana” or “The story of Lord Rama”
Instead of: “Hindu gods and goddesses from mythology” Use: “Hindu deities” or “The divine in Hindu tradition”
Small changes, but they signal respect rather than dismissal.
Question Colonial Frameworks
Most importantly, recognize when you’re operating within colonial categories and question them.
When someone says “Hindu mythology,” ask: “Why do we use ‘mythology’ for this but not for Christian narratives? Where did this category come from?”
Make the colonial framework visible. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Objections and Responses
“But ‘Mythology’ Is Just an Academic Term”
Response: No category is “just” anything. All categories carry values and assumptions.
“Mythology” in academic usage may be intended neutrally as “traditional narrative” but it carries cultural baggage. In popular usage, it means “false story.”
When you apply it selectively (to Hinduism but not Christianity), the bias becomes clear.
“But Many Hindus Use ‘Hindu Mythology’ Themselves”
Response: Internalized colonization doesn’t make colonization legitimate.
Many colonized people adopt the colonizer’s language and categories. That’s how colonization works: it gets into your head.
The fact that Hindus say “Hindu mythology” is evidence of how successful the colonial project was, not a defense of the term.
“But We Need Some Term for English Speakers”
Response: We have options that don’t carry colonial baggage.
“Hindu sacred narratives,” “Dharmic texts,” “Itihasa and Purana,” “Hindu epics,” “Hindu scripture” all of these work in English without the connotation of falsehood that “mythology” carries.
Language is flexible. We can create new conventions.
“But Archaeological Evidence Shows These Aren’t Historical”
Response: You’re still operating within the Western binary of “empirical history” vs “false myth.”
Itihasa occupies a third space: narratives understood as preserving events but elaborated with philosophical, symbolic, and devotional elements.
You don’t have to believe every detail is empirically accurate to recognize that these narratives functioned as civilizational memory, not as fiction.
“This Is All Just Political Correctness”
Response: No, it’s epistemic justice.
Asking people not to use colonial categories to delegitimize living traditions isn’t “PC culture.” It’s basic respect for how people understand their own beliefs.
If you wouldn’t call Christian narratives “Christian mythology” in polite conversation, why is “Hindu mythology” acceptable?
The double standard reveals politics.
Reclaiming Our Narrative Framework
Language is never neutral. The categories we use shape what we can think, what we value, and who gets to define truth.
“Hindu mythology” is a colonial category imposed by people who wanted to delegitimize Indian civilization. It has been so successful that most Indians don’t even recognize it as colonial.
But we can choose differently.
We can use Itihasa and Purana. We can specify genres rather than lumping everything as “mythology.” We can question why the same narratives are “sacred history” in one tradition and “mythology” in another.
This isn’t about rejecting Western scholarship. Many Western scholars have contributed invaluable insights into Indian traditions. But we can engage with those insights without accepting colonial frameworks wholesale.
We can honor the complexity of Indian knowledge systems on their own terms.
Conclusion: Decolonizing Language, Reclaiming Memory
The battle over “Hindu mythology” is a battle for civilizational memory.
When you control what something is called, you control how it’s valued. When you decide that someone’s sacred history is “mythology” (false) rather than Itihasa (it happened thus), you’ve made a power move disguised as scholarship.
For too long, Indians have accepted colonial categories as neutral. We’ve taught our children “Hindu mythology” as if it were the natural term. We’ve written our own traditions into the framework created by those who wanted to prove our civilization inferior.
It’s time to stop.
Not because we should be defensive or reactionary. But because precision matters. Because respect matters. Because the frameworks we use to understand our traditions shape whether those traditions survive.
As someone who has spent years excavating the Goddess tradition from patriarchal erasure, I know this: what is not named correctly is eventually forgotten.
So let’s name our traditions correctly.
Not “Hindu mythology.” But Itihasa. Purana. Sacred narratives. Dharmic wisdom.
Our ancestors preserved these texts for thousands of years using their own categories. The least we can do is honor those categories rather than replacing them with the language of the empire.
Because when we reclaim our language, we reclaim our memory. And when we reclaim our memory, we reclaim ourselves.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Is the term ‘Hindu mythology’ offensive?
A: It depends on context and intent. Many Hindus find it reductive because “mythology” in English implies falsehood, and it’s a colonial term imposed by British scholars. While some use it neutrally to mean “traditional narratives,” others see it as delegitimizing living faith. The indigenous terms are Itihasa (for epics) and Purana (for cosmological texts), which don’t carry the connotation of “false story.”
Q2: What should I say instead of ‘Hindu mythology’?
A: Use “Itihasa and Purana,” “Hindu sacred narratives,” “Dharmic texts,” or “Hindu epics.” Be specific: say “the Ramayana” rather than “Hindu mythology about Rama.” For academic contexts, “Hindu narrative traditions” or “Hindu sacred literature” works. The goal is to avoid implying that these narratives are false while still being accessible to English speakers.
Q3: Did Indians use the term ‘Hindu mythology’ before colonialism?
A: No. The word “Hindu” as a religious category was popularized by British colonizers in the 18th-19th centuries. The term “mythology” was applied to Indian texts by European scholars who modeled it on their treatment of Greek and Roman narratives. Indigenous categories were Itihasa (epics like Ramayana/Mahabharata) and Purana (cosmological-theological texts). “Hindu mythology” is entirely a colonial construction.
Q4: But aren’t the Ramayana and Mahabharata technically myths?
A: Only if you accept Western categories as universal. In Indian tradition, they’re Itihasa, meaning “it happened thus” narratives understood as preserving events, though not necessarily as modern historical chronicles. Calling them “myths” forces them into a Western binary of “empirical history vs. fiction” that doesn’t fit. Itihasa occupies a third space: sacred narrative with historical memory, philosophical depth, and devotional significance.
Q5: Why is ‘Greek mythology’ acceptable but not ‘Hindu mythology’?
A: Greek mythology refers to a dead religious tradition no one worships Zeus today. It’s historicized, academicized, and culturally neutralized. Hinduism is a living tradition with over 1 billion practitioners for whom these narratives are sacred, not fictional. Calling living people’s sacred history “mythology” (with its connotation of falsehood) is different from using it for ancient civilizations. Also, notice we don’t say “Christian mythology” for the Bible, revealing the double standard.
Q6: How did British colonizers benefit from calling it ‘mythology’?
A: It served the colonial project of establishing European superiority. By categorizing Indian texts as “mythology” (primitive, false) while treating Christian texts as “scripture” (divine, true), colonial scholars created a hierarchy that justified British rule. It was intellectual colonization: making Indian civilization seem backward compared to “enlightened” Europe. This linguistic framing supported political and economic domination by undermining confidence in Indian knowledge systems.
Q7: Do Indian academics use ‘Hindu mythology’?
A: Unfortunately, yes. Many Indian scholars trained in Western academic institutions use colonial terminology because it’s the dominant framework in global academia. This is internalized colonization when the colonized adopt the colonizer’s categories and police themselves. However, there’s growing awareness, and many scholars now consciously use Itihasa/Purana or add disclaimers about the colonial origins of “mythology” when they use it.
Q8: What’s wrong with using ‘mythology’ neutrally to mean ‘traditional stories’?
A: Language is never neutral. While “mythology” can technically mean “traditional narrative,” it carries cultural baggage in English. Most people understand “myth” as “false story.” When applied selectively (Hinduism gets “mythology,” Christianity gets “scripture”), it reveals bias. Additionally, using “mythology” erases indigenous categories (Itihasa, Purana) that better reflect how the tradition understands itself. Why impose European categories when Indian ones exist?
Continue Your Journey
Want to understand the difference between myth and mythology?
Read: Mythology vs Myth: Why Words Matter in Preserving Cultural Truth
Curious about what mythology actually means beyond Western definitions?
Explore: What Is Mythology? A Non-Western Perspective
Ready to dive deep into the Goddess tradition?
Discover: Mahadevi: The Unseen Truth Behind Existence – Reclaiming the Divine Feminine from colonial and patriarchal erasure.
About the Author
Priyanka Sharma Kaintura is a mythology activist, author, and speaker dedicated to separating myth from mythology and excavating narratives buried by colonialism and patriarchy. After two decades in corporate communication, she now writes full-time, focusing especially on the Goddess tradition. Her books include Mahadevi: The Unseen Truth Behind Existence and My Jiffies: Narration of Moments, Unadulterated and Unpackaged.
She believes that accurate communication is the plinth for most of what goes right in the world, and that reclaiming our linguistic frameworks is essential to reclaiming our civilizational memory.
Read More About Priyanka | Explore Her Books | Subscribe to Newsletter
