The Puzzle of Hinduism: Understanding How Hinduism Boosts the Evolutionary Fitness of Different Linguistic Communities in India

<p><strong>Theories in the evolution of religion have illuminated multiple pathways by which belief systems can sustain large-scale cooperation, ranging from divine punishment and supernatural monitoring (e.g., “Big Gods theory”) to costly signalling, reputation management, and ritual commitment. Each framework highlights important aspects of why religions persist, yet none fully account for the enduring case of Hinduism, particularly the role of Hindu deities, while other polytheistic traditions have declined in popularity. Hindu deities are not typically portrayed as moralising or punitive in the “Big God” sense, nor do they consistently demand the costly ritual investments emphasised in signalling theory. Instead, they are often depicted with human-like flaws, desires, and vulnerabilities. As a result, existing accounts of Hinduism’s endurance often emphasise Karma, a moral force that delivers morally-congruent consequences to human actions. While valuable, these explanations remain incomplete because they overlook the valuable role Hindu gods themselves may be playing in sustaining the lasting and growing presence of Hinduism.</strong></p><p>We hypothesise that Hinduism persists through its ability to adapt to smaller group needs, hence supporting the socio-economic niches of different Hindu-Indian linguistic communities. Instead of punishing norm violators, each God models different normative behaviours targeted to solve specific socio-ecological challenges within a community. Karma then reinforces the normative standard set by Hindu Gods in each community. We examine two Indian-linguistic communities with naturally occurring differences in religious practices, who are opposites in their risk-taking and enterprising abilities: Gujaratis and Maharashtrians. Gujaratis are a dominant business-oriented community known for their risk-taking abilities. Conversely, Maharashtrians are characteristically risk-averse and mostly occupy salaried positions in urban areas.</p><p>The first study used qualitative methods to explore worship practices in Gujarat (Baroda, N = 36) and Maharashtra (Kolhapur, N = 39). The study found that although different gods were worshipped in each community, their moral concerns were highly similar. However, participants insisted that each god embodied distinct values, leading us to argue that Hindu deities foster cooperation not through norm-enforcement but through religious internalisation, which shapes the normative decisions of their communities. In addition, we introduced a caste-sensitive method for data collection, using triangulation to classify caste based on self-report, others' perceptions, and profession (described more fully in Chapter 3).</p><p>The second study employed an experimental design involving vignettes depicting human decision-making that aligned with either the financially risk-prone norms associated with Krishna (Gujarati) or the financially risk-averse norms modelled after Ganesha (Maharashtrian). The results revealed that the responses of the participants (N = 320) were consistent with the values of their dominant deity, even without direct reference to God. Interestingly, Gujarati women, unlike men, tended to favour risk-averse decisions, aligning more with the Maharashtrians. This suggested that Hindu gods play a role in shaping gender norms that support the ecological niches of their communities.</p><p>In the third study, secondary data from the Pew Research Center (N = 20,503) was used to test the relationship between Krishna worship and patriarchal values. We hypothesized that Krishna, associated with traditional gender norms in mythological stories, would correlate with more patriarchal values in Gujarati community. The results confirmed this, showing that Gujaratis who felt close to Krishna held more patriarchal values, a pattern also observed in Maharashtra and other Indian states. This points to a potentially cyclical relationship between god worshipped and the perpetuation of patriarchal norms.</p><p>In the general discussion, we bring these strands together, showing how existing theories each explain part of the puzzle but fail to capture Hinduism’s endurance in full. We propose that the missing piece lies in the ‘role model hypothesis’. In this chapter we also argue that the enduring relevance of Hinduism can be understood through its alignment with human cognitive tendencies, such as the formation of in-groups and the anthropomorphizing of deities. We suggest that had the psychological study of religion started from the Hindu context, the concepts emphasized would likely differ from those shaped by Abrahamic traditions.</p>