So if you understand the context, what's the problem? A man dedicated to a harder Hindu dominated world from an organization that is much the same - he says something glib and you expect us not to search for meaning? To accept a benevolent worldview from a man known for anything but?
I am well aware of RSS and its ambitions, and this I consider to be a great step forward.
What would you have preferred? If he had said that Hindu gods were the real gods and Muslim/Christian gods are blasphemous? Because that is what real fundamentalists say every day towards Hindus.
Without even debating the comment (for example, I'd like to know where a Pakistani leader has said that Pakistani Sikhs are Muslims, and if he has, whether you think that's OK given you're defending what Bhagwat said), my Pakistan example was to get you to comment on the comparison.
Firstly, no muslim would ever call a Hindu/Sikh a "muslim" because Islam's tenets are precise and defined. Any idol-worshpper cannot become a Muslim.
"Islam" and "Muslim" can have no other meaning other than the religious one, whereas "Hindu", for most of history, has been a demonym rather than a faith.
It's like looking in the mirror isn't it? One hardline view to combat another. Well, I'm not having that. 'The enemy at the gates' is an old argument as well, too often used to justify a hardline course of action.
I would call him 'Hardline' if he said that "Muslims cannot be Hindus" because they are different.
THAT, my friend, would be hardline.
No, but let them come to the fore and they will say that one day.
Haha. That is never going to happen.
What DOES happen every day, however, is that Muslims/Christians call people of other faiths as blasphemy and shirk.
Forget non-muslims, infact Shias and Sunnis are always telling each other that you are blasphemer and kaffir etc. Taliban is telling moderate muslims that they are kaffirs.
If Islam is always trying to carve out a exclusive niche for itself in every society, don't blame the society.