PMLA – ED vs. Didi

On 8^th January, 2026, the city of Kolkata saw an interesting altercation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal Chief Minister, Smt. Mamata Banerjee. This article does not claim to be an exhaustive or even an accurate description of the events that have transpired since. There is much to be revealed (or forgotten, depending on the media narrative) in the days to come. However, this article aims to answer (or just raise) 6 questions that remain unanswered as on the night on 11^th January, 2026.

1.      Does the ED need to inform the local police of a raid prior to commencing the raid?

As per multiple media reports, the raid at Pratik Jain’s residence started at around 6 AM at Loudon Street. A police sergeant arrived at Jain’s residence at around 9 AM, but was denied entry. It is also reported that even a DCP was denied entry. However, it is not reported why the sergeant sought entry in the first place, or why the DCP did not immediately react.

After trying for 2 hours, the Kolkata police filed a complaint at 11:20 AM. Shortly afterwards at 11:30 AM, the ED informed Kolkata police about its presence at Jain’s residence. Interestingly, this information has vanished from the internet. Readers may still find it on Times of India, Kolkata edition, dt. 10.01.2026, Page 3, or other similar print editions. Also, ChatGPT remembers.

Strictly and legally, there is no statutory requirement of any central agency (ED / IT / CBI / NIA) to inform the local police before conducting a search / raid. That said, it is customary for a central agency to inform the local police for coordination or security. When this does not happen, it may raise to disputes regarding the identity of the ED officers, or create logistical hurdles, or simply lead to a confrontation between the two authorities, as it happened in the present case.

This is not the first time the ED has conducting raids without informing the local police. The agency found itself amid a similar controversy in 2022 when the then Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and member of the Indian National Congress (INC / Congress), Bhupesh Baghel, objected to the ED’s raids occurring without informing the local police. In 2025, Baghel was raided and his son was arrested by the ED.

2.      Can the persons who are being raided leave the premises?

It is common practice for a raiding agency to restrict the movement of persons while conducting a raid. This is to prevent removal or destruction of evidence. However, the agency is not allowed to restrict the movement of persons or even their departure from the premises as that would amount to illegal detention or arrest. A raid is conducted on a premises, and persons may be allowed to enter or exit upon inspection.

In the present case, a controversy emerged when police personnel were not allowed to enter the premises during the raid and when the West Bengal Chief Minister entered the premises and exited with documents and digital devices. The ED has already filed a case before the Calcutta High Court that this act of the Chief Minister amounts to obstruction of an official investigation. However, the exact allegations and the defence are not known yet.

3.      Can the ED file a Writ Petition?

As of 11^th January, 2026, the ED has filed 2 writ petitions – (1) on 9^th January, before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief Minister, senior Kolkata Police officials, and the CBI, and (2) on 10^th January, before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief Minister, and senior Kolkata Police officials.

The Article 226 petition alleges an obstruction in an official investigation, removal of evidence, and seeks a CBI enquiry into the events that transpired during the raid. An Article 226 application is often made against a state actor / government machinery, in this case the state of West Bengal. The matter could not be heard amidst a chaotic courtroom on 9^th January and has been rescheduled for 14^th January. On this, the ED is considering requesting the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Delhi High Court for a more conducive environment for adjudication. This would also be an insult to the state of West Bengal, who is the primary respondent in the ED’s petition, during an upcoming election.

The Article 32 petition again alleges interference and obstruction in an official investigation and seeks direction on how the investigation should proceed without such obstruction and the restoration of evidence. An Article 32 petition is often made where there is an imminent threat to fundamental rights, in this case, the right of an unobstructed investigation. The ED seeks to have the matter heard before the Supreme Court on 12^th January.

But the pertinent question here is, can the ED file a writ petition under Article 32 at all? A writ under this Article is normally filed by a person whose fundamental rights are threatened by the state. Does the ED, being an agency under the central government, have fundamental rights? This question was asked by Justice Oka of the Supreme Courtto the ED in April 2025 in a separate writ petition under Article 32. In that case, the ASG withdrew the petition and followed other legal recourses. So now that Justice Oka has retired, is the ED trying its luck again or is toying with another legal strategy by parallel proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court with similar petitions?

Curiously, no public discourse has yet addressed whether sanction would be required before any criminal process against ED officers, assuming acts were done in official discharge and protected under section 218 of the BNSS [197 of the CrPC].

4.      Can ED raids happen for long forlorn cases?

 The present case emanates from the ED ECIR no. ECIR/17/HIU/2020 dt. 28.11.2020 which in-turn comes from the CBI complaint no. RC0102020A0022 27.11.2020. Since then, the ED has made arrests and attachments as a part of its investigations, conducted by both the CBI and the ED.

There is nothing on record that shows that the ED had any fresh cause of action for conducting raids. However, it is the nature of investigation that they need to be unpredictable to be effective. The ED has alleged that I-PAC has been involved in hawala transfers from illegal coal mining which has been used for campaign expenses.

Legally, under the “continuing offence” doctrine, the ED has the right to initiate PMLA investigations that may have occurred anytime in the past, even before the PMLA was enacted. This has been widely discussed in the case of Nawab Malik. The ED had alleged that the money laundering in Malik’s case had happened in 1999, due to which he was arrested in 2022. The case is presently stayed by the Bombay High Court.

5.      What about the CCTV footage?

CCTV footage has been collected by the Kolkata police and Bidhannagar police from Pratik Jain’s residence and I-PAC’s office respectively. The ED has insisted in court to freeze the CCTV footage, showing its importance for both sides of the investigations. As of the date of the article, the footage has already been forwarded to forensic labs to find the identity of the ED officials in support of the local police investigation.

It is unclear why identification of individual ED officers is required at all, when the raid is admitted and official, unless the intent is to pursue personal criminal liability rather than institutional accountability.

This also reveals the difference in the approach of the state and the ED. The state is pursuing FIRs and police investigations, i.e. asserting territorial criminal jurisdiction. On the other hand, the ED is filing writs to assert legal supremacy and federal rights.

6.      Why is Mamata Banerjee blaming Amit Shah?

The Enforcement Directorate reports to the Ministry of Finance. The political head of that ministry is Nirmala Sitharaman, who works under the Prime Minister – Narendra Modi. However, the West Bengal Chief Minister and other TMC leaders chose to repeatedly name Amit Shah as the perpetrator of the ED action. Incidentally, Amit Shah has been visiting Bengal to organize campaign efforts for the upcoming assembly elections. So the West Bengal Chief Minister has chosen to attack a target closer to home and keep the fight regional – on a turf where she has greater command. Of course if Amit Shah is accused, Modi cannot be entirely uninvolved. But the Chief Minister has avoided naming Modi and instead chosen a target that is more likely to stick to the blame and lacks public appeal. This also allows Mamata Banerjee to keep options open for future parliamentary cooperation with the BJP. And of course, by not attacking Modi she has avoided being named an anti-national. This would be useful in future national elections.

Hari-Har

Paradox

Vishnu is symbolized as the preserver of the universe. Resting in the cosmic ocean (sheer sagar), he sleeps. The ferocious 100-headed Sheshnag is domesticated and serves as the bed. The goddess of all prosperity sits at Vishnu’s feet, symbolizing his power. Vishnu is the preserver. He symbolizes social structure. Yet, Vishnu takes no real family. Laxmi is more of a consort than a wife. Of course in the mortal avatars, Vishnu marries Laxmi. But Vishnu himself isn't depicted as a family man.

On the other hand, the hermit (vairagi) god, Shiv, is depicted as a family man with a complete household. He has a battery of household staff, residence, legitimate wife, children, daughters-in-law, rides etc. Shiv is represented as a household man, even though his role is that of a ascetic, yogi, and destroyer.

There is a natural dichotomy in this. Why would this be? Is there a narrative explanation? Shiv has been depicted as a family man to showcase that even a vairagi can be a household person. But this is not shown in Vishnu. What other explanations can be there?

Vishnu

Vishnu is the preserver of the cosmic order (dharma), which is beyond the narrow human family unit. If he is shown enmeshed in family, his scope would shrink. His domain is the whole universe. Why tie him to one household?

He doesn’t need children or a household, because Lakshmi herself represents fertility, prosperity, continuity. She is the generative force. Thus, the Vishnu and Lakshmi combination serves as a self-sufficient unit.

When Vishnu enters the world as Ram or Krishn, he takes wives, sons, in-laws, and through them demonstrates righteous conduct in family and society. The avatar “borrows” household responsibilities so that Vishnu himself can remain unbound.

Vishnu’s role is meta-social. He preserves structure, not by embodying it in his personal life, but by overseeing and restoring it through avatars.

Shiv

Shiv is depicted as a yogi, outside the world. Yet, he is at once the most complete family man. This is holds a deliberate lesson – detachment does not require renunciation. One can be rooted in the world, yet free from its boundations.

Unlike Lakshmi who is seen to serve Vishnu, Parvati is a partner – in tapasya, power, and household. Through her, Shiv is forced to engage in worldly life – have sons, fight demons, and care for devotees. He doesn’t preserve order like Vishnu; he challenges it, destroys arrogance, but at the same time nurtures his family.

Shiv’s paradox teaches a different ideal – the sage need not abandon family; the deepest yogi can still be husband and father.

Reconciliation

Vishnu worship historically was linked with kingship and order – kings wanted a god beyond petty family disputes. Shaiva traditions, often rooted in folk and tribal cultures, needed a god who was close to daily life – hence the family setting.

For householders, Shiv provides a relatable deity – even the greatest ascetic cooks for his kids, fights with his wife, solves domestic quarrels. For rulers and administrators, Vishnu provides the archetype – beyond family, concerned with law, order, and dharma.

Dharma is not one path but a balance.

This reversal is not accidental. Vishnu shows how to run the cosmos; Shiv shows how to run the home. The preserver is personally detached; the destroyer is personally entangled. Each battles the idea of detachment and renunciation. Where Vishnu teaches cosmic preservation without personal attachment, Shiv teaches personal attachment without loss of cosmic detachment. Each looks towards the other as an ideal to strive for. They are enthralled by each other and aspire to one another. In the process, they become one – Hari-Har.

Dr. Strange and the Knife’s Edge

"Look, if it´s you or someone you love who´s on that operating table, and it´s life or death, I´m the one you want holding the knife." – Stephen Strange (deleted scene from Multiverse of Madness)

Dr. Strange’s story across the MCU is not just of a man mastering magic, but of a man wrestling with the illusion of moral mastery, forever on the edge between savior and sinner. The audience first meets the powers of the sorcerer supreme is through the Ancient One. We see that the sorcerer supreme wields an immense amount of power, that obviously has the potential to corrupt. The Ancient One is not immune to this and is seen to draw her powers from the dark dimension. She is able to maintain her moral ground with no overreaches of power except that one aberration. But this shows the potential for corruption that the power holds. The Ancient One could have gone down a darker path, but she didn’t. Her student, Kaecilius, did.

Kaecilius going astray is proof that mystical power has scope for corruption. There is one guiding light that the Ancient One gives to Dr. Strange as her dying words, which become his moral compass.

“Arrogance and fear still keep you from learning the simplest and most significant lesson of all – It’s not about you.” – The Ancient One

This simple truth, the knowledge that the higher order of things is more important, becomes Strange’s guiding light, even though he continues to struggle with it.

"You still think there will be no consequences, Strange? No price to pay? We broke our rules. Just like her. The bill comes due. Always!" – Karl Mordo

At the end of the movie, Dr. Strange defeats Dormamu by meddling with the laws of nature. Mordo gives his ominous warning. This almost becomes a pattern with Strange where he continues to break the rules, and pays the price. This begs the question, is Strange working to fulfil his duties to the multiverse or for his own glorification?

In Infinity War, Strange makes several key choices. Firstly he is upfront about willing to sacrifice his companions, Tony Stark and Peter Parker, in favour of an infinity stone. However, once having gone through alternate futures, Strange makes the morally ambiguous choice to sacrifice the stone, himself, and half the universe to save Tony Stark. This one decision, would come to haunt him later.

In No Way Home, Strange again makes the choice of meddling with the memories of the entire world to fulfil the whims of a boy. By doing so, Strange literally messes with free will and chooses to play God, taking decisions for the entire world upon himself. In the wake the fallout from that decision, Strange is willing to send back the multiversal visitors to their own universe which would mean their inevitable deaths, without offering them a chance at redemption – a point where he disagreed with Spiderman. Dr. Strange’s reasoning being that the order of the multiverse must be preserved to prevent incursions and a multiversal collapse, i.e. the greater good. History is witness that when a single man takes it upon himself to sacrifice others for the greater good, that’s where morality starts to become dubious.

“You break the rules and become a hero. I do it and I become the enemy. That doesn't seem fair.” – Wanda Maximoff

Arrogance was already a problem with Strange. It was a tool when he was a doctor. It was what made him drive recklessly on a cliff. Like the demon Raavan from Hindu scriptures, Strange was a perfect human specimen capable of playing God – extremely learned and capable. But his arrogance had potential to lead him astray.

This pattern of meddling with the universe continues in Your Friendly Neighbourhood Spiderman where Strange enters a new universe to fight a symbiote, only to create a bootstrap paradox that ends up creating the symbiote in the first place.

Next we are shown the alternate paths Strange might have taken through the multiverse. In What If we first meet an alternate version of Strange where Christine Palmer dies instead of him. This sets Strange on a path where he ultimately becomes Strange Supreme. He consumes many powerful beings to increase his own power, to the point that he is  barely able to contain them. And they in-turn begin to control him. He is so driven to madness with his ambition that he ends up destroying the universe. For the first time, the audience witnesses what Strange could have been.

This idea is explored further in Multiverse of Madness. Nicodemus West confronts Strange with the question if the blip was the only way to save the world. Strange knows that there were other ways, and he had made a choice for the world.

“I guess what keeps me up at night is wondering did it have to happen that way? Was there any other path?” - Nicodemus West

There’s a deleted scene from Multiverse of Madness where Strange and Chritine are asked about a new surgical method. The scene recounts that Strange is willing to use risky techniques, till he holds the knife. He trusts no one else with the power. But this begs the question, should be much power be allowed in any hands? But this scene is deleted for being too similar to the opening scene with Defender Strange.

The movie opens with Defender Strange making a choice to take America Chavez’s powers for himself because Strange thinks that the kind of massive power America holds is not safe for a child and only Strange can be allowed to wield it safely. For this, he is willing to sacrifice America Chavez as well.

“This is the only way.” – Defender Strange

In the same movie, we also see the Strange from Earth-838 using the darkhold to defeat Thanos on his own. This again, breaks the rules of mysticism. But Strange takes it upon himself to break those rules for the greater good. He even accepts death as punishment from the Illuminati for his discretion.

Next, we meet Sinister Strange in the movie, who also made choices that led to the destruction of his universe, where he was left stranded. But Sinister Strange had reached beyond redemption and fought the original MCU Strange for Christine Palmer.

At the end of the movie, Dr. Strange does consider taking America’s powers like Defender Strange did. But it’s like the Ancient One’s advice comes back to him – “it is not about you”. And he encourages America to take on the Scarlett Witch on her own. Here, we see a character development for Strange. He let’s go of the knife and believes in someone else holding the power. But this may not be true for his variants.

Strange walks the same tightrope in every universe. One misstep – love, duty, ego – and he falls into darkness. Like the law he mirrors, Doctor Strange’s morality is both his shield and his trap – built to protect the world, yet destined to break under its own weight. Strange is the MCU’s purest utilitarian, willing to sacrifice the few for the many. But the question reverberates whether he should be the one holding the knife.

PMLA - Bihar Sand Mining

Patna, August 22, 2025. In a significant development in a high-profile Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case linked to alleged illegal sand-mining operations in Bihar, the Patna High Court today granted bail to Kanhaiya Prasad. The bench underscored the absence of conclusive evidence against the petitioner and raised concerns about prolonged detention without the commencement of trial proceedings.

Kanhaiya Prasad was first arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in September 2023. In May 2024, the Patna High Court granted him bail, citing constitutional principles such as the right to speedy trial.

The ruling was short-lived. On February 12, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale vacated the High Court’s bail order, holding that the High Court had failed to adequately apply the rigorous twin-condition test under Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandates satisfying both innocence and non-flight risk before bail can be granted.

Just days later, on February 17, 2025, the Supreme Court bench hearing Udhaw Singh v. ED applied liberal bail principles, drawing upon precedents such as V. Senthil Balaji and K.A. Najeeb, which emphasize that prolonged incarceration without trial. The Bench also noted that the February 12 order had not considered the precedents in the case of Kanhaiya Prasad.

The latest bail order, issued on August 22, 2025, reflects the High Court fully incorporating those precedents. The court meticulously addressed the Supreme Court’s findings and observations from V. Senthil Balaji and K.A. Najeeb, which were cited before the coordinate bench at the ED's request.

The bench noted that the case against Prasad hinges mainly on "conjectures and surmises." There is no documentary proof tying him to proceeds of crime or showing any nexus between him, his father, and the mining business. The prosecution’s claims regarding a so-called “syndicate” rely exclusively on uncorroborated Section 50 statements of co-accused, deemed insufficient for establishing culpability.

Having already spent nearly 15 months in custody, with no trial commenced or charges framed, the court held that the ongoing detention undermines Prasad’s fundamental right to a speedy trial – a principle repeatedly upheld in Supreme Court rulings.

In a related judgment from May 2025, the High Court quashed most of the predicate FIRs filed against sand-mining companies, reasoning that these entities could not have carried out theft as they weren’t in possession of mining ghats at the material time. The High Court further hinted at administrative laxity, noting that the mining department itself may bear responsibility for any theft. That ruling critically undermines the foundation of the ED’s laundering case.

Consequently, bail was granted with a bond of ₹ 10 lakh and standard conditions including surrender of passport, travel restrictions, and other supervisory measures.

The ED's case encompasses 12 individuals. Presently, nine are on bail, and in one instance, the Patna High Court found the ED’s arrest as illegal. Several of the predicate FIRs critical to the money-laundering charge have now been quashed, making it increasingly difficult to prosecute effectively. Though two accused remain in custody pending bail hearings, this wave of court orders signals growing judicial skepticism of the prosecution’s strategy.

This ruling illustrates a broader judicial pushback against the perceived overreach of PMLA provisions, particularly the draconian dictates of Section 45. While the PMLA was enacted to curb economic crimes, its stringent bail thresholds have often resulted in prolonged incarceration without trial – a scenario decried as "process as punishment" by critics.

Decisions in V. Senthil Balaji, K.A. Najeeb, and Manish Sisodia have carved out exceptions – granting bail when the procedural delay is unjustifiable and the case’s material weakness is evident. The latest bail order reinforces that constitutional protections under Article 21 must temper statutory draconianness, especially when trial pendency extends indefinitely.

The Patna High Court’s August 22 bail order for Kanhaiya Prasad marks not just a personal reprieve but a significant pivot in PMLA jurisprudence. It underscores that even in serious economic offences, courts must balance statutory tough-on-crime mandates with constitutional liberties. The decision – and the corresponding relief extended to other accused – may well compel the ED to rethink its prosecutorial approach in long-drawn money-laundering cases, especially when evidence is tenuous and procedural timelines indefinite.

Paganism and Creationism – A Hindu Perspective

Introduction

Human civilizations have always sought to explain their origins. Two major schools of thought dominate the religious imagination when it comes to creation. Various cultures have attributed different names to these two broad philosophies. For the purpose of this article, we shall name them as:

1.      Paganism: Rooted in the worship of nature

2.      Creationism: Based on the divinity of a transcendent creator.

The word paganism is Eurocentric – coined by Christians to label pre-Christian faiths as primitive. Paganism is often better understood as animism or naturalism, i.e. the worship of nature. Paganism is by definition a polytheistic practice and does not even fit in the definition of “religion” as perceived by Creationists.

Creationism, on the other hand posits that God stands outside the world, rather than being a part of it. God creates the universe and its inhabitants rather than being the universe.

The interplay of these two perspectives has shaped nearly every religious tradition. Curiously enough, Hinduism seems to contain both.

Paganism

Paganism, in its many forms, is the world’s oldest spiritual instinct. In this view, divinity is immanent. It dwells within nature rather than beyond it. The gods of the Greeks, Romans, Vedic Indians, native Americans, European Pagans, Zoroastrians etc. were not abstractions of morality but embodiments of elemental forces. The pantheon of Gods included the sky, thunder, water, fire, lust, horses, and even the Earth. To worship meant to engage, to harmonize with the living powers that governed existence. There was no clear line between the sacred and the natural. Man was not made in the image of God; he was a participant in a divine continuum.

This worldview naturally aligns with Darwin’s evolution: the idea that life emerges and adapts through natural processes rather than divine decree. The pagan cosmos is not static; it is a field of becoming. Its Gods evolve, merge, and dissolve, just as life itself does.

Creationism

Creationism by contrast, posits separation. The God of the Abrahamic faiths, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, stands apart from His creation. He speaks the world into existence. Man, made in His image, is unique among creatures, endowed with free will and moral responsibility. Here, nature is not divine but designed; its beauty testifies not to its own power but to the mind of its maker.

The central theme of creation is the separation of mankind from God by gaining knowledge and self-awareness. Free Will itself is the forbidden fruit of knowledge that has separated Man from the Almighty and Man spends eternity in trying to return to his maker. The struggles of Man and life itself is attributed to this separation.

The symbols of this worldview are deeply anthropocentric: the Garden of Eden, the Fall, the divine command, the covenant. The relationship between man and God becomes one of obedience, redemption, and moral testing. The world becomes a stage for divine purpose.

The Hindu Synthesis

Hinduism stands at a fascinating crossroads of these two conceptions. Early Vedic religion, as reflected in the Rigveda, is unmistakably cosmological. Its hymns are dedicated to the elemental deities and its rituals are designed to maintain harmony between human life and the cosmic order. The divine is everywhere, woven into the fabric of the universe. Mathematics naturally emerges as the language of the universe.

Yet, as centuries passed, Hindu thought underwent a profound transformation. The Upanishads internalized the external gods into philosophical principles. Fire became tapasya, sacrifice became yagya, and the gods became symbols of consciousness itself. The Puraṇs later expanded these abstractions into stories of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiv the Destroyer, forming a triad that reintroduced personhood to metaphysical truths.

This evolution mirrors, at first glance, to the European shift from polytheistic paganism to monotheism. But the Indian transition differed in its method and spirit. In Europe, paganism was replaced by Christianity. In India, the old gods were not overthrown but absorbed. Agni did not vanish when Brahma appeared; he was reinterpreted as one of Brahma’s many manifestations. Nature was not desacralized but philosophically sublimated.

Aspect	European Transition	Indian Transition
Nature of change	Replacement	Integration
Outcome	Monotheism (one true God)	Monism (one reality, many forms)
Method	Suppression of paganism	Sublimation of paganism
Symbolic outcome	God outside nature	God within and beyond nature

The Indian genius lay in synthesis, not rejection. Paganism and creationism were reconciled in a vision where both creator and creation are expressions of the same underlying consciousness – Brahman. The famous Upanishadic line, Sarvam khalvidam Brahma (“All this is Brahman”), captures this perfectly.

The Question of Theseus: Is Hinduism Still Hinduism?

If the religion of the Veds and that of the Purans differ so greatly, can they still be called the same faith? By Western measures of doctrinal purity, perhaps not. But Hinduism’s strength has always been its elasticity. It never defined orthodoxy through fixed revelation. The Veds are sruti: truths heard from the cosmos. The Purans are smrti: truths remembered and reinterpreted by human minds. Revelation in Hinduism is cyclical, not linear. Truth is rediscovered, not imposed.

In this sense, Hinduism did not change identity; it changed language. What began as a worship of the elements matured into a meditation on being itself. What began as myth matured into philosophy, and what began as ritual transformed into introspection. It is not a religion that abandoned its past but one that continually digests it.

Conclusion

Hinduism may indeed have begun as a pagan religion, a reverence for the divine in nature. Over millennia, it integrated the creational, metaphysical, and moral dimensions that characterize more theistic systems. Yet, unlike Europe’s rupture between paganism and monotheism, India’s evolution was a synthesis. The elemental and the eternal, the personal and the impersonal, coexist within the Hindu imagination.

Thus, the modern form of Hinduism is neither purely pagan nor purely creational – it is both. It stands as a bridge between immanence and transcendence, between nature and spirit, between the god who is the world and the god who creates it. Hence, Hinduism did not cease to be itself; it became more self-aware. To call this Hinduism is not to name a fixed religion, but to acknowledge a timeless process: the universe, endlessly creating and rediscovering itself, through the mind of man.