"Hinduism is a great union of various Indian cultures with diverse roots and no founder" - do these cultures deny each other as "Hindu"? dont they share some common practices and beliefs? strictly speaking none of the major religions accept they hv a "founder" - just mouthpieces.
"culture" varies over a region, just as it does under other religions too - will same logic apply to xtianity in Eur/Africa/Asia and Islam in ME/Africa/Asia - will existence of Sunni/Shia or Cath/protestant or diff cultures within a faith imply they r just unions of cultures?
"Hinduism does not have one but many central texts - the vedas, puranas, itihasas, naya,....": do these texts deny each other or recognize a common thread& derivation? maths has algebra/analysis and many streams. does it imply there is no unity and commonality in maths?
Xtianity/Islam/"socialism" have many texts too: many versions of the texts, many schools of derived texts which contradict and oppose each other - over which ppl fight and shed blood. does it somehow imply Xtianity/Islam are a collection of texts with nothing in common?
"Hinduism is pluralistic: it is a union of many ways of life" interestingly those who condemn savarkar's defn of "hindutva" carefully avoid his actual defn - which states clearly Hindutva as the collective lived practice of all those who mutually acknowledge each other as "Hindu"
"hinduism is unique in its inclusiveness, it embraces multiple streams of thought...it looks at entire world as its family" did any Hindu thought/text ever accept this interpretation as an unconditional unfiltered acceptance of all thoughts? can it accept sex-slavery of jihad?
the most insidious side of this statements like this is that it quotes a few verses without context and extend them to mean a one way tolerance implying hinduism is vacuous in value terms that it has no principles of rejection of ideas too.
Savarkar clearly "othered" Islam/xtianity on the point of reciprocality - as these two dont recognize Hinduism as valid, and dont honour what Hindus honour in sacred geograohy.
If Islam/Xtianity's non-recognition/invalidation of Hinduism is not a hatred/fear of Hinduism how come "Hindutva"'s rejection of Islam/Xtianity as non-Hindu becomes "hatred and fear". author of the table aware Savarkars defn cant be used for his/her purpose hence "practitioners".
"hinduism is synonymous with secularism: ano bhadra krtavo yantu vishwata" let noble thoughts come to me from all directions" this is the second most obnoxiously deceptive linguistic spin apart from the context of the verse in the text.
first, is "secularism" purely abt "noble thoughts coming from all directions"? all early mention of "ahimsa" in Hindu texts stress link to prevention of cruelty/killing of animals. yet modern "secularism" imposes a tolerance of massive and often torturous blood sacrifice by faith
which one is the "noble thought" here - current secularisms demand for tolerance of things that hv been rejected as values/principles in "Hindu texts"? isnt acceptance of such non-noble (by values seen in "Hindu texts") thoughts itself ag "secularism" by defn of Tharoor's table?
Savarkar's defn of Hindutva shd be read by all interested - even those bashing it without reading it or those like in Tharoor's table - mischievously and deliberately not quoting it fully.
Savarkar gives 3 criteria for "Hindutva": recognizing (1) subcontinent as birthcountry (2) subcontinent as sacred geography (3) all lived practices including rituals of those who mutually acknowledge each other as Hindus. He goes into specific cases to illustrate this.
Hindutva in Savarkars' outline simply is a definitioin or characterization of nationhood - he didnt say those not satisfying the criteria are to be expelled or killed or forced to choose between death or Hindutva (jihadis always force ppl to choose between Islam& death)
The third point in Savarkars criterion - the acceptance of all lived practices/rituals of all those who mutually acknowledge each other as Hindu - is avoided by both RW and LW. Its a crucial point that dissolves a primary abuse pt by Left. So do read him first.
