^Listen mr. Dabong, firstly, you don't know the first thing about Indian legal system.
The term Hindu as per legal definition (which has precedent) includes all dharmic religions of India. This is why Sikh personal laws come under the Hindu personal law. That does not imply that Sikhs are treated as Hindus (in the religious sense) or that they have to follow Hindu religious practices.
What is termed as Hindu personal laws is actually a highly secularized framework of personal laws. Whatever religious component is there, is common to all dharmic religions of India.
So Mr. Tarlochan Singh is basically campaigning for nothing but a change of name. It has zero significance in terms of the substance of the laws. All it will do is add to the paperwork.
Also, this does not imply that Sikhs are classified as a "Hindu Subcaste". I wonder where you got that.
The term Hindu as per legal definition (which has precedent) includes all dharmic religions of India. This is why Sikh personal laws come under the Hindu personal law. That does not imply that Sikhs are treated as Hindus (in the religious sense) or that they have to follow Hindu religious practices.
What is termed as Hindu personal laws is actually a highly secularized framework of personal laws. Whatever religious component is there, is common to all dharmic religions of India.
So Mr. Tarlochan Singh is basically campaigning for nothing but a change of name. It has zero significance in terms of the substance of the laws. All it will do is add to the paperwork.
Also, this does not imply that Sikhs are classified as a "Hindu Subcaste". I wonder where you got that.