Sanatana Dharma and Bharat are synonymous. The essence of its philosophy is inclusivity and acceptance of diversity. However, as Sri Aurobindo wondered about the Hindu-Muslim relations of his time, how can one be tolerant of a religion whose policy is intolerance? Here, we can take advantage of the thesis of Dr. Balagangadhara. Indian phenomena like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are not religions. They are traditions that have been inappropriately constructed as religions. Only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism count as religions in the definitional sense. The essence of traditions is an ‘indifference to differences’ that transcends the standard ‘acceptances, mutual respects, and tolerances.’ Conversion is intensely unethical in traditional cultures. Religions place truth values and doctrines as supreme, and by necessity, one book and one God must be superior to the rest. Conversion is an important dynamic here. India dealt with religions by “traditionalizing” them at a social-cultural level, which was our solution to multiculturalism. Modern thinkers and politicians, without understanding the nature of Indian culture, are trying to convert all our traditions into proper religions, making them intolerant in the process. The Enlightenment in Europe blunted the fundamentalism of Christianity. A similar process has not happened in Islam. The moderate Muslim remains helpless. The result is that countries where Islam is a major religion end up hating perceived non-Islamic countries more easily and for the smallest of reasons. Hence, whatever help India may have rendered to Bangladesh or the Maldives, the general hatred will never go away. The events after India’s defeat in the cricket finals and the recent imbroglio in the Maldives are only a marker of this phenomenon. Reforms for any religion or culture must come from within and never from outside. It is the responsibility of the moderates to correct whatever appears to be problematic in Islam. There will always be an outcry against outside intervention.