We could discuss this if you had even a nodding acquaintance with the facts of the past. I have little to discuss with someone who starts with the argument that there was no other faith before Hinduism in India, in the teeth of all the evidence.
No other living thriving faith sir. I leave it to the historians, sociologists and theologians to dissect those long dead, or practiced by much smaller numbers, academically.
As for the rest, you are making the usual Hindutvavadi mistake, assuming that the numbers of those clinging on to a belief is proof or otherwise of the validity of that proposition.
Why would you think numbers do not count? Ever person has his or her own belief. And in a democracy like ours, my belief is equal to yours, because you have one vote, and so do I, and so does a rickshaw walla or a bawarchi or a bai. We are the sum total of all these Indians sir. And the sum total of all these Indians decides what they want India to be, who they want India to be ruled by, and where they want India to go.
The premisses being wrong, the construction of the rest of the argument falls down under its own weight.
The premise is that India is the ancestral home of the Hindus and of Hinduism.
To expand on it further, it is also the ancestral home of Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. All dharmic faiths, indigeneous to the soil, the the cultural and social and spiritual DNA of the land and its people.
Not so Islam or Christianity. They are not from this land. Their followers are.
I do not know what you are referring to, and am very afraid that somehow the impression has been gained that it makes a material difference.
You presumed that I was calling non Hindus "honorary" Hindus. I never did. I corrected you with what I actually called them. That is what I was referring to. One is condescending, implying superiority of still active believer versus ancestral believer, now departed the flock. The other puts aside the belief system and stresses the equality of shared heritage and culture. The RSS and BJP's Hidutva of cultural nationalism.
That is not the point. The point is that even if every last man were to have been a convert, they have the right to draw themselves apart if they wish to do so.
Nobody is stopping a Muslim or a Christian from saying or believing that they are apart from or different to us.
Just as nobody should come in the way of us calling them our own.
You cannot be a liberal for one set, and a Talib for the other, sir.
Quite clearly the furore over the failure of development initiatives, and the additional furore of the bigotry being displayed being the only working part of the new government's programme shows that what you are saying is wrong, and is self-serving.
Sir the furore is in the media. Look around you.
@Bang Galore
For the sake of the discussion, can you share some of the salient premises of the book please.
Ancient faiths always had a strong affinity for bloodlines and purity of lineage, unlike the comparatively newer faiths which sought to grow inorganically. Could possibly be a cyclical thing faiths go through and maybe Hinduism too in its younger days actively converted like Islam or Christianity. I know people always bring in the example of SE Asia when people say that Hindus do not convert. Who knows.
All I know is that Hindus are having a bit of a catharsis under the BJP right now. I do not see any violence. I do not see an bloodshed. So no sense in people getting their chuddies all twisted in knots over it.