indiafacts.co.in/introspecting-operation-bluestar/
Oh for goodness' sake.
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/govt-bows-to-khalistani-protesters.html
Hindus - well, it's the nationalists that are still hung up on it - need to deal.
Sikhs have moved on. Why are only Hindus forever still running after them?
Sure the Brits had pulled here too what they did in TN with the Justice Party etc. Creating divisions and perception of fundamental distinctiveness. But the fruits have ripened with time, and there's no reversal possible anymore.
It's like IF member BV said since the beginning - that Hindus should stop chasing after Sikhs already.
Yes Sikhs were a Vaishnava sect originally, but now they deny that they ever were. How can there even be a conversation when modern Sikhs are disconnected with the views of the original Sikhs (starting with the Sikh Gurus)? Modern Sikhs will simply deny that Vishnu was ever the original central kuladevam of Sikhism and there's an end on it. Can point to their own literature admitting to Vishnu as their God, but they'll just think Hindus are force-reading this to missionise on them (the way christoislamics factually misinterpret Hindoo and other heathenisms by force-reading their mono-gawd into our heathenisms, which is for missionary purposes).
At the linked indiafacts article there is a statement of some Hindu (nationalist probably) who desperately declared that 'Sikhism is a superior form of Hinduism' or something. (Which Hindoo even believes this? And if they do, they should convert to Sikhism already and stop wasting everyone's time.) It's rather like that other self-goal documented by Elst, where some Hindu had declared - presumably thinking that sucking up shamelessly would score brownie points with other Indics - that Jains were the best Hindus. (So which one is the best again? Sikhism or Jainism? Hindu nationalists can't even agree.) Another "Indic" of Hindu origin who hadn't converted to Buddhism praised Buddhism as being the best version of Hinduism as it was free from the superstitions of Gods. But he disapproved of the emergence of the inculturating Mahayana, which Buddhism he regretted, since it merely repeated the "error" of the Hindus.
^ But there you have modern "Hindu" nationalists in a nutshell: either they will refuse to recognise that Hindoo heathenism exists, or if they do recognise it at last, it is specifically not as a favour to Hindoos, but only so they can declare that Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are the superiors in every way.
Hindutva and Hindutva peddlers are merely a noose around Hindoos' neck.
Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have moved on. Hindus need to move on too, like "non-carborundum" said.
Sikhs Jains and Buddhists probably took one look at how Hindu nationalists have denied Hindoo heathenism and turned it into a nothingness by forcibly lumping it with its opposites ("Hinduism is an atheism, agnosticism, it is Lokayata" etc etc) and then ran off for their dear lives to save their own religions. They have distinct religions and while they don't identify with Hindoo heathenism, they certainly wouldn't want Hindu nationalism/Hindutva to repeat the "favours" it bestowed on Hindoo heathenism: that of the denial of its existence, that of clubbing it with utter antagonisms, that of subverting it and perverting it (recently some new-agey modern Hindu declared that Adi Shankaracharya and Lokayata "agreed" in that they allegedly both - and not just the latter - lambasted the Vedas. More of the modern nonsense universalism). Can you see Jains and Buddhists accept being lumped with their arch-enemies the Charvakans, even if they were to ever get over the fact of being forcibly lumped with Hindoos? Geez, did their acharyas spend all their efforts lambasting Lokayata only to have Hindutva types conflating Buddhism and Jainism with Lokayata?
And then, why in the world would definite theists - monotheists too, like modern Sikhs are and will hereafter ever be - want to be stuck with Charvakans and other atheist schools? Hindutva types may have no self-respect and see no distinctions - being new-agey "anything goes" types - and may take it for granted to treat Hindoo heathenism as a cleaning rag, but Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are not that deluded.
They all did well in escaping before the train wreck of Hindutva pulls the same thing on their religions as it did on Hindoos and Hindoo heathenism (formerly Hinduism until Hindutva turned that word into a nonsense): turn them into utter travesties too by Hindutva's tendency to create a new age hodge-podge by lumping them with unrelated stuff. Hindutva types were even declaring Yezidis were "Dharmic" (and one comment at indiafacts declared the bahai were Hindus too. And from there is but a small step to including christoislam. But will save that for tomorrow's Hindutva, else there's no room for it to evolve.)
Anyway, Sikhism as it is today has only a few lingering, outward connections with Hindoo heathenism: e.g. the "Ek OMkaar" which is too late for Sikhs to rewrite or deny now, but then, they have somehow managed to excuse their way out of references to Hindoo Gods in their religion. Whatever. OMkaaram (is it OMkaar in Hindi/Punjabi/etc?) refers only to the Hindoo Gods of course, and everything else is a bad copy. (I don't get paid to share.) The OMkaara doesn't refer to jeebus, Buddhisms, Jainisms or the invisible monogod of Sikhism either whom Sikhs insist is not anything Hindu=Vedic anymore. Not my problem. But this is very much their problem as it actually points to a severe hollowness in their argument for uniqueness and distinctiveness.
The split is inevitable. So Hindu nationalists need to let go too. It's like if one person in a married couple wants a divorce. Nothing much to do about it then. Pursuing them is like stalker behaviour after that, and makes the nationalist come across as having an inferiority complex (which Hindutva types have: they regularly deny Hindoo heathenism or declare it is far less than every other Indic religion; please convert already ueber-dhimmis).
If Sikhs say for decades on end now that they're not Hindu, Hindu nationalists should respect that, since the religions are clearly different now: Sikhs don't *want* to be lumped in Hindoo religion, since they see what the differences are (even though originally they had been a Vaishnava subcommunity and hence clearly Hindoos onlee back then. Specifically not so now). Also, Hindu nationalists fool and please nobody by using "Hindu" as an equivalent for Indic or even Indian. It is a gross injustice to HindOOs whose sole self-designation in English this is. Buddhists, Sikhs, and even Jains don't *want* to be lumped with Hindus except as ethnic Indians - if that - so Hindu nationalists can stop using "Hindu" as a synonym for Indian/Indic, since it is clearly superfluous. (No matter what word may have existed for Hindoos in English, I am sure Hindutva types would have pounced on it, seized it and gifted it to all and sundry Indics, as the whole purpose of Hindutva is self-negation of Hindoos to pretend a universal Indic religion, and let them all have any slice of Hindoo heathenism they want in return for their acquiescence. Count the number of times Hindu nationalists tell Hindoos to not notice that yoga already pre-existed Buddhism and Jainism, and that Buddhism and Jainism weren't original but repeated bits and pieces of the Upanishads before spinning off at a tangent. Hindu nationalists want nothing better than that Hindoos must not make such observations - no matter how truthful - as they may hurt the sensitivities of the other Indics. No mentioning that the late cloned Ramayanas etc of the other Indics are mere clones. Hindus are expected to roll over and pretend these are all "equally valid" blabla. No wonder islam treats Hindu nationalists as dhimmis.)
The split with Sikhs is unavoidable. It's already done from their end and Hindus will abide by it. Have to.
BUT if Sikhs try to use the perceptual split they have already achieved to hereafter claim Punjab as independent and for their own religion, can tell them that HindOO India has already given away all the land it will EVER part with (and that is not a permanent deal either) to the monotheistic disease. So Sikhs who want a Punjab homeland have to look at getting the part of Punjab in TSP-W. No more of sacred ancestral HindOO land will be donated to any monotheism. Either live amicably with Hindus in the Indian Punjab or move out to TSP. Punjab is sacred Hindoo land well known as Hindoo=Vedic since the Vedic era. Hindoos are willing to share the space with Sikhs, but there will be no gifting it to Sikhism (directly, or indirectly via an alleged independence first).
Any Sikhs who don't understand ^that^ point are Khalistanis and belong in TSP not India.
And can Hindu nationalists please stop rolling over and declaring every other religion superior to Hindoo heathenism? (And can nationalists stop always lamely excusing Hinduism with "but atheism/lokayata is Hinduism too". They're obviously ashamed of Vedic religion being an undeniable heathenism.) Since all that is valuable in Sikhism and Buddhism and Jainism already exists in Hindoos' heathenism - being in fact derived from said Hindoo heathenism. And anything distinctive about any of these later religions is not really worth having, but if "Hindus" feel it is, they are always free to convert out, since clearly they feel short-changed by Vedic religion (but no poaching on Vedic religion thereafter, no two-timing).
Divorces being final and mutual besides, any Sikhs who want to (continue) worshipping Hindoo Gods or wish to have a claim to Vedic civilisation/ancientry and ancestry are free to revert properly and fully, as they cannot (and may not) do both Sikhism and Vedic religion at the same time. No poaching and dabbling. See, Hindoos lose nothing by the spin-offs pretending they are original (as the ur-Shramanism theory does) and distinct (as Shramanisms and Sikhism etc do). Hindoos' history in the homeland goes back well before any of them came to be, late and opportunistic backprojections notwithstanding. Vedic religion IS Da ancestral religion of the homeland. Everything else didn't just came after but is oh-so-obviously derived.
And every respectable person in the west wants to regain their polytheistic idolatry - that's what all the "reconstruction" movements in the west are about. More importantly, heathens in the East - "polytheistic idolators" - respect only Hindoo heathenism (Vedic religion) in India, not the other Indic religions, though they do know of these. No one except Abrahamics (and I suppose Parsees, per their insistence on this point) worship invisible monogawds. So if Sikhs feel superior vis-a-vis "polytheistic idolatrous Hindoos" on account of being monotheists worshipping some invisible monodeity (all monotheists including Yezidis have this superiority complex, it is a feature of monotheism and why "paganism" is used as an insult by all of them), well HindOOs are in the company of *Shintos* and Taoists and Hellenes etc etc, nah? Every civilisation in the world was heathen onlee.
All later Indian religions have only been missionary: seen from how they have only alienated once-Hindoos from their ancestral Hindoo heathenism=Vedic religion=Sanatana Dharma ("polytheistic idolatry") into the novel nouveau replacement theologies. They have the audacity to then pretend/argue that they have a right to keep their converts and prevent them from returning to Hindoo heathenism, as if their "finders keepers" law works only one way.*
Au contraire. There is nothing wrong in Hindoos welcoming the alienated of their own ethnic kind back, since why should Hindoos always keep losing its own people to competing religions and accepting that such things must be uni-directional, that we may not encourage reversions here? So: other Indics are always welcome to revert to their ancestral heathenism, which is Vedic religion onlee. (And NOT a mix of Vedic religion + <insert any of the later Indic replacement theologies>, which mixing only dilutes and mocks both.)
* E.g. can look at Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist Sangha freak out when their badly-converted laity prefer to worship Hindoo Gods in Hindoo temples and start thronging there. The Sangha has to then desperately go and take over Hindoo temples and turn these into Buddhisms (via the usual Bauddhifying mythologising), after which the Buddhist laity crowding to the once-Hindoo sacred site slowly dwindle, exactly because it was the pristine Hindoo nature of the temples - the Hindoo Gods, uneclipsed by Buddhism - that attracted the laity, while the Bauddhification no longer gives the laity what they found there. <- Summarises how contrary to bombastic Buddhist claims, Buddhism was never fulfilling for even Buddhist/Bauddhified laity. BTW: It's the exact same reason why "Buddhist"/Bauddhified laity in E and SE Asia prefers to worship the Gods of their ancestral heathen religions there (many "Buddhist" laity in SE and E Asia are less Buddhist than of the local heathen religions, something Buddhism has been repeatedly trying to remedy by "properly" converting them).
"Hindutva" has totally negated Hindoo heathenism. The first thing Hindutva types always do is to deny Hindoo heathenism - to woo unHindoos - or else to sell Hindoo heathenism to all others, cheapening it. Prostituting it against its will. (A crime.)
There's not a time that Hindoos aren't expected to roll over and "share" the origination of yoga, OM/mantras, and a thousand other originally (to say the least) heathen Hindoo things with other Indic religions. Hindoos are always expected to share these as "equally belonging" to every other Indic religion, though all of these have only ever been replacement religions.
Then Hindutva peddlers declare that others - unHindus and their unHinduisms - are the better Hindus and Hinduism. And that if all other Indic religions are not allowed an equal claim on the word Hindu, then there is no such thing as Hinduism or a Hindu at all. (The last is what causes these blind people to dangerously deny the existence of HindOO laity and which makes these very vulnerable and exposes these to all missionary predators, including the Indic types.) Fortunately for HindOOs, there is very much a Hindoo heathenism. Which is the religion of the Hindoo Gods [aka Vedic religion/SD etc] and - being a heathenism - is specifically not to be confused with Sikhs, Ajeevikas, Jains, Buddhists, Lokayata, other atheisms and agnosticisms ancient or modern.
Hindutva is merely a recently invented political movement that is a replacement ideology acting to replace Hindoo heathenism: to convert existing allegiance to Hindoo heathenism into allegiance to Hindutva instead. It seeks to eradicate Hindoo heathenism and replace it with an "anything goes" universalism in its attempts to woo all Indians to be followers of the nouveau religion.
Hindoos should resist the Hindutva fraud and its peddlers. If they had merely called it nationalism and came up with some new-agey national spirituality, instead of encroaching on the word Hindu, it would have been unoffensive and could have co-existed. But Hindutva peddlers from the beginning encroached on the sole self-designatory term available to HindOOs in the English language, and hence Hindutva was always invented and peddled as a replacement for Hindoo heathenism. And so it has proved over and over. Every "Hindu nationalist" keeps expecting Hindoos to sacrifice yet more of their heathenism (and self-respect) in order to appeal to and win over Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs etc and get these to finally agree to be "Hindus" (of Hindutva) too. The last three are not so foolish fortunately and know to act in their own self-interest.
I don't know why Hindoos are expected to keep rolling over. What hold do Hindutva peddlers have on HindOOs anyway that they expect HindOOs to negate themselves over and over? Even alien demons are less successful in denying HindOOs than Hindutva and its peddlers have been.
Thanks to Hindutva, Hindoos have become "Hindu miscellany" next to "Hindu Sikhs", "Hindu Jains", "Hindu Buddhists", "Hindu atheists" etc.
As if Hindoos were but as randomly and loosely joined together as they are with Buddhists and the like.
Anyway, so happy that several christians refer to themselves (possibly by alien instruction?) as Hindus qua 'culture' and christian by religion (in arguing that Hindoos must tolerate their inculturating canker). They're still as seccessionist and as anti-Hindoo as every other christoislamic, of course. But now, thanks to Hindutva for cheapening the word "Hindu", Hindu nationalists will be forced to include such christians as "Hindus" well. They do claim that India is their land etc after all. It will be considered the holy land of christoislamics in India hereafter (the way the ME became, the way S Korea is called the Jerusalem of the east upon some 23% of the population converting to christianism). So India will be both punya bhumi for christoislamics and pitru bhumi too (since christoislamic converts try seccessionism in India by claiming the land belongs to their native ethnicity, converted though they be). Thus satisfying all principles of Hindutva for what is a Hindu. Surely?
Oh for goodness' sake.
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/govt-bows-to-khalistani-protesters.html
Quote:non-carborundum said...
It is hard to accept that Sikhs can any longer be considered an ally of Hindus. The anti-Hindu rhetoric and actions are all too pervasive to hold on to any such notion. Further, years of propaganda has finally succeeded in turning Sikhism into a monotheistic religion much like Islam and Christianity. This is a sad truth that Hindus must nonetheless accept and move on.
6/07/2015 1:07 PM
Hindus - well, it's the nationalists that are still hung up on it - need to deal.
Sikhs have moved on. Why are only Hindus forever still running after them?
Sure the Brits had pulled here too what they did in TN with the Justice Party etc. Creating divisions and perception of fundamental distinctiveness. But the fruits have ripened with time, and there's no reversal possible anymore.
It's like IF member BV said since the beginning - that Hindus should stop chasing after Sikhs already.
Yes Sikhs were a Vaishnava sect originally, but now they deny that they ever were. How can there even be a conversation when modern Sikhs are disconnected with the views of the original Sikhs (starting with the Sikh Gurus)? Modern Sikhs will simply deny that Vishnu was ever the original central kuladevam of Sikhism and there's an end on it. Can point to their own literature admitting to Vishnu as their God, but they'll just think Hindus are force-reading this to missionise on them (the way christoislamics factually misinterpret Hindoo and other heathenisms by force-reading their mono-gawd into our heathenisms, which is for missionary purposes).
At the linked indiafacts article there is a statement of some Hindu (nationalist probably) who desperately declared that 'Sikhism is a superior form of Hinduism' or something. (Which Hindoo even believes this? And if they do, they should convert to Sikhism already and stop wasting everyone's time.) It's rather like that other self-goal documented by Elst, where some Hindu had declared - presumably thinking that sucking up shamelessly would score brownie points with other Indics - that Jains were the best Hindus. (So which one is the best again? Sikhism or Jainism? Hindu nationalists can't even agree.) Another "Indic" of Hindu origin who hadn't converted to Buddhism praised Buddhism as being the best version of Hinduism as it was free from the superstitions of Gods. But he disapproved of the emergence of the inculturating Mahayana, which Buddhism he regretted, since it merely repeated the "error" of the Hindus.
^ But there you have modern "Hindu" nationalists in a nutshell: either they will refuse to recognise that Hindoo heathenism exists, or if they do recognise it at last, it is specifically not as a favour to Hindoos, but only so they can declare that Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are the superiors in every way.
Hindutva and Hindutva peddlers are merely a noose around Hindoos' neck.
Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have moved on. Hindus need to move on too, like "non-carborundum" said.
Sikhs Jains and Buddhists probably took one look at how Hindu nationalists have denied Hindoo heathenism and turned it into a nothingness by forcibly lumping it with its opposites ("Hinduism is an atheism, agnosticism, it is Lokayata" etc etc) and then ran off for their dear lives to save their own religions. They have distinct religions and while they don't identify with Hindoo heathenism, they certainly wouldn't want Hindu nationalism/Hindutva to repeat the "favours" it bestowed on Hindoo heathenism: that of the denial of its existence, that of clubbing it with utter antagonisms, that of subverting it and perverting it (recently some new-agey modern Hindu declared that Adi Shankaracharya and Lokayata "agreed" in that they allegedly both - and not just the latter - lambasted the Vedas. More of the modern nonsense universalism). Can you see Jains and Buddhists accept being lumped with their arch-enemies the Charvakans, even if they were to ever get over the fact of being forcibly lumped with Hindoos? Geez, did their acharyas spend all their efforts lambasting Lokayata only to have Hindutva types conflating Buddhism and Jainism with Lokayata?
And then, why in the world would definite theists - monotheists too, like modern Sikhs are and will hereafter ever be - want to be stuck with Charvakans and other atheist schools? Hindutva types may have no self-respect and see no distinctions - being new-agey "anything goes" types - and may take it for granted to treat Hindoo heathenism as a cleaning rag, but Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are not that deluded.
They all did well in escaping before the train wreck of Hindutva pulls the same thing on their religions as it did on Hindoos and Hindoo heathenism (formerly Hinduism until Hindutva turned that word into a nonsense): turn them into utter travesties too by Hindutva's tendency to create a new age hodge-podge by lumping them with unrelated stuff. Hindutva types were even declaring Yezidis were "Dharmic" (and one comment at indiafacts declared the bahai were Hindus too. And from there is but a small step to including christoislam. But will save that for tomorrow's Hindutva, else there's no room for it to evolve.)
Anyway, Sikhism as it is today has only a few lingering, outward connections with Hindoo heathenism: e.g. the "Ek OMkaar" which is too late for Sikhs to rewrite or deny now, but then, they have somehow managed to excuse their way out of references to Hindoo Gods in their religion. Whatever. OMkaaram (is it OMkaar in Hindi/Punjabi/etc?) refers only to the Hindoo Gods of course, and everything else is a bad copy. (I don't get paid to share.) The OMkaara doesn't refer to jeebus, Buddhisms, Jainisms or the invisible monogod of Sikhism either whom Sikhs insist is not anything Hindu=Vedic anymore. Not my problem. But this is very much their problem as it actually points to a severe hollowness in their argument for uniqueness and distinctiveness.
The split is inevitable. So Hindu nationalists need to let go too. It's like if one person in a married couple wants a divorce. Nothing much to do about it then. Pursuing them is like stalker behaviour after that, and makes the nationalist come across as having an inferiority complex (which Hindutva types have: they regularly deny Hindoo heathenism or declare it is far less than every other Indic religion; please convert already ueber-dhimmis).
If Sikhs say for decades on end now that they're not Hindu, Hindu nationalists should respect that, since the religions are clearly different now: Sikhs don't *want* to be lumped in Hindoo religion, since they see what the differences are (even though originally they had been a Vaishnava subcommunity and hence clearly Hindoos onlee back then. Specifically not so now). Also, Hindu nationalists fool and please nobody by using "Hindu" as an equivalent for Indic or even Indian. It is a gross injustice to HindOOs whose sole self-designation in English this is. Buddhists, Sikhs, and even Jains don't *want* to be lumped with Hindus except as ethnic Indians - if that - so Hindu nationalists can stop using "Hindu" as a synonym for Indian/Indic, since it is clearly superfluous. (No matter what word may have existed for Hindoos in English, I am sure Hindutva types would have pounced on it, seized it and gifted it to all and sundry Indics, as the whole purpose of Hindutva is self-negation of Hindoos to pretend a universal Indic religion, and let them all have any slice of Hindoo heathenism they want in return for their acquiescence. Count the number of times Hindu nationalists tell Hindoos to not notice that yoga already pre-existed Buddhism and Jainism, and that Buddhism and Jainism weren't original but repeated bits and pieces of the Upanishads before spinning off at a tangent. Hindu nationalists want nothing better than that Hindoos must not make such observations - no matter how truthful - as they may hurt the sensitivities of the other Indics. No mentioning that the late cloned Ramayanas etc of the other Indics are mere clones. Hindus are expected to roll over and pretend these are all "equally valid" blabla. No wonder islam treats Hindu nationalists as dhimmis.)
The split with Sikhs is unavoidable. It's already done from their end and Hindus will abide by it. Have to.
BUT if Sikhs try to use the perceptual split they have already achieved to hereafter claim Punjab as independent and for their own religion, can tell them that HindOO India has already given away all the land it will EVER part with (and that is not a permanent deal either) to the monotheistic disease. So Sikhs who want a Punjab homeland have to look at getting the part of Punjab in TSP-W. No more of sacred ancestral HindOO land will be donated to any monotheism. Either live amicably with Hindus in the Indian Punjab or move out to TSP. Punjab is sacred Hindoo land well known as Hindoo=Vedic since the Vedic era. Hindoos are willing to share the space with Sikhs, but there will be no gifting it to Sikhism (directly, or indirectly via an alleged independence first).
Any Sikhs who don't understand ^that^ point are Khalistanis and belong in TSP not India.
And can Hindu nationalists please stop rolling over and declaring every other religion superior to Hindoo heathenism? (And can nationalists stop always lamely excusing Hinduism with "but atheism/lokayata is Hinduism too". They're obviously ashamed of Vedic religion being an undeniable heathenism.) Since all that is valuable in Sikhism and Buddhism and Jainism already exists in Hindoos' heathenism - being in fact derived from said Hindoo heathenism. And anything distinctive about any of these later religions is not really worth having, but if "Hindus" feel it is, they are always free to convert out, since clearly they feel short-changed by Vedic religion (but no poaching on Vedic religion thereafter, no two-timing).
Divorces being final and mutual besides, any Sikhs who want to (continue) worshipping Hindoo Gods or wish to have a claim to Vedic civilisation/ancientry and ancestry are free to revert properly and fully, as they cannot (and may not) do both Sikhism and Vedic religion at the same time. No poaching and dabbling. See, Hindoos lose nothing by the spin-offs pretending they are original (as the ur-Shramanism theory does) and distinct (as Shramanisms and Sikhism etc do). Hindoos' history in the homeland goes back well before any of them came to be, late and opportunistic backprojections notwithstanding. Vedic religion IS Da ancestral religion of the homeland. Everything else didn't just came after but is oh-so-obviously derived.
And every respectable person in the west wants to regain their polytheistic idolatry - that's what all the "reconstruction" movements in the west are about. More importantly, heathens in the East - "polytheistic idolators" - respect only Hindoo heathenism (Vedic religion) in India, not the other Indic religions, though they do know of these. No one except Abrahamics (and I suppose Parsees, per their insistence on this point) worship invisible monogawds. So if Sikhs feel superior vis-a-vis "polytheistic idolatrous Hindoos" on account of being monotheists worshipping some invisible monodeity (all monotheists including Yezidis have this superiority complex, it is a feature of monotheism and why "paganism" is used as an insult by all of them), well HindOOs are in the company of *Shintos* and Taoists and Hellenes etc etc, nah? Every civilisation in the world was heathen onlee.
All later Indian religions have only been missionary: seen from how they have only alienated once-Hindoos from their ancestral Hindoo heathenism=Vedic religion=Sanatana Dharma ("polytheistic idolatry") into the novel nouveau replacement theologies. They have the audacity to then pretend/argue that they have a right to keep their converts and prevent them from returning to Hindoo heathenism, as if their "finders keepers" law works only one way.*
Au contraire. There is nothing wrong in Hindoos welcoming the alienated of their own ethnic kind back, since why should Hindoos always keep losing its own people to competing religions and accepting that such things must be uni-directional, that we may not encourage reversions here? So: other Indics are always welcome to revert to their ancestral heathenism, which is Vedic religion onlee. (And NOT a mix of Vedic religion + <insert any of the later Indic replacement theologies>, which mixing only dilutes and mocks both.)
* E.g. can look at Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist Sangha freak out when their badly-converted laity prefer to worship Hindoo Gods in Hindoo temples and start thronging there. The Sangha has to then desperately go and take over Hindoo temples and turn these into Buddhisms (via the usual Bauddhifying mythologising), after which the Buddhist laity crowding to the once-Hindoo sacred site slowly dwindle, exactly because it was the pristine Hindoo nature of the temples - the Hindoo Gods, uneclipsed by Buddhism - that attracted the laity, while the Bauddhification no longer gives the laity what they found there. <- Summarises how contrary to bombastic Buddhist claims, Buddhism was never fulfilling for even Buddhist/Bauddhified laity. BTW: It's the exact same reason why "Buddhist"/Bauddhified laity in E and SE Asia prefers to worship the Gods of their ancestral heathen religions there (many "Buddhist" laity in SE and E Asia are less Buddhist than of the local heathen religions, something Buddhism has been repeatedly trying to remedy by "properly" converting them).
"Hindutva" has totally negated Hindoo heathenism. The first thing Hindutva types always do is to deny Hindoo heathenism - to woo unHindoos - or else to sell Hindoo heathenism to all others, cheapening it. Prostituting it against its will. (A crime.)
There's not a time that Hindoos aren't expected to roll over and "share" the origination of yoga, OM/mantras, and a thousand other originally (to say the least) heathen Hindoo things with other Indic religions. Hindoos are always expected to share these as "equally belonging" to every other Indic religion, though all of these have only ever been replacement religions.
Then Hindutva peddlers declare that others - unHindus and their unHinduisms - are the better Hindus and Hinduism. And that if all other Indic religions are not allowed an equal claim on the word Hindu, then there is no such thing as Hinduism or a Hindu at all. (The last is what causes these blind people to dangerously deny the existence of HindOO laity and which makes these very vulnerable and exposes these to all missionary predators, including the Indic types.) Fortunately for HindOOs, there is very much a Hindoo heathenism. Which is the religion of the Hindoo Gods [aka Vedic religion/SD etc] and - being a heathenism - is specifically not to be confused with Sikhs, Ajeevikas, Jains, Buddhists, Lokayata, other atheisms and agnosticisms ancient or modern.
Hindutva is merely a recently invented political movement that is a replacement ideology acting to replace Hindoo heathenism: to convert existing allegiance to Hindoo heathenism into allegiance to Hindutva instead. It seeks to eradicate Hindoo heathenism and replace it with an "anything goes" universalism in its attempts to woo all Indians to be followers of the nouveau religion.
Hindoos should resist the Hindutva fraud and its peddlers. If they had merely called it nationalism and came up with some new-agey national spirituality, instead of encroaching on the word Hindu, it would have been unoffensive and could have co-existed. But Hindutva peddlers from the beginning encroached on the sole self-designatory term available to HindOOs in the English language, and hence Hindutva was always invented and peddled as a replacement for Hindoo heathenism. And so it has proved over and over. Every "Hindu nationalist" keeps expecting Hindoos to sacrifice yet more of their heathenism (and self-respect) in order to appeal to and win over Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs etc and get these to finally agree to be "Hindus" (of Hindutva) too. The last three are not so foolish fortunately and know to act in their own self-interest.
I don't know why Hindoos are expected to keep rolling over. What hold do Hindutva peddlers have on HindOOs anyway that they expect HindOOs to negate themselves over and over? Even alien demons are less successful in denying HindOOs than Hindutva and its peddlers have been.
Thanks to Hindutva, Hindoos have become "Hindu miscellany" next to "Hindu Sikhs", "Hindu Jains", "Hindu Buddhists", "Hindu atheists" etc.
As if Hindoos were but as randomly and loosely joined together as they are with Buddhists and the like.
Anyway, so happy that several christians refer to themselves (possibly by alien instruction?) as Hindus qua 'culture' and christian by religion (in arguing that Hindoos must tolerate their inculturating canker). They're still as seccessionist and as anti-Hindoo as every other christoislamic, of course. But now, thanks to Hindutva for cheapening the word "Hindu", Hindu nationalists will be forced to include such christians as "Hindus" well. They do claim that India is their land etc after all. It will be considered the holy land of christoislamics in India hereafter (the way the ME became, the way S Korea is called the Jerusalem of the east upon some 23% of the population converting to christianism). So India will be both punya bhumi for christoislamics and pitru bhumi too (since christoislamic converts try seccessionism in India by claiming the land belongs to their native ethnicity, converted though they be). Thus satisfying all principles of Hindutva for what is a Hindu. Surely?