>Why do you think "everyone is bothered about India"?
India was the subtopic here, so we are discussing India. And specifically your thoughts about India.[…]

Perhaps you are mistaken. I was speaking about India and Hinduphobia. Everything else is the subtopic.

>And my answer is pretty much the same. I am not in favor of any authorian nationalistic theocraties/monarchies. [..]

But if they are small and not aggressive, then it is not such a big deal, as "people can get away more easily".[..]

How many wars have been fought in the past hundred years and how many in India?

>Still, India is waaay bigger. And "we" in "the west" are concerned, whether you will slip more into authorian religious nationalism, or if we share enough values to remain or become stronger partners against other authorian regimes (and yes, yes, "the west" is far from perfect and the freedom wars in iraq etc. [..]

Ahh.. so you contradict your first comment. Everyone IS bothered about India and you say it’s because of its size?

India has a democratically elected government. Asking that all the religions in a secular nation follow the same Uniform Civil Code is not ‘Religious nationalism’.

>And you absolutely can. I have no problem with that. I am not anti Hindu. I was often singing Bhajans and will do so again.

Why do you sing Bhajans if you are not Hindu. They are in praise of Hindu Gods. Bhajans are an expression of Bhakti and devotion to Hindu Gods. Singing something because of its musicality has nothing to do with how you relate to or understand a religious identity or affiliation.

>But I do have a problem if you would supress other religions and ethnicities who also just want to protect their culture.[..]

That is not possible in a democratic secular nation. India cannot claim to be secular if Muslims have their own personal law and Hindus have their own personal laws. And the courts are expected to treat them differently.

Regardless, none of this affects anyone on an international level as in wars or terrorism. It is India’s internal matter.

>That is my point. And maybe this is not at all what you want. But it very much sounds like it. At least implicit.

I am a Hindu. I am interested in the survival of my faith in its spiritual homeland. Just like Jews, Christians, Muslims and others revere their spiritual spaces.

Hinduism is more inclusive and tolerant than any of the other predominant monotheistic faiths, but a secular democratic nation cannot treat citizens differently based on their faith.

If India is a Hindu country, minorities would still thrive as they did for thousands of years. Indian history is full of unequal treatment of Hindus and Muslims during Mughal rule and British colonization.

Hindus do not want to convert other religionists to Hinduism and only want a Uniform Civil Code to right the wrongs of the British meddling in our legal system through fair democratic elections.

To call this ‘extremism’ or ‘religious nationalism’ is somewhat disingenuous and untrue. Muslims enjoy far more religious freedoms and are considered equal citizens in India than Hindus in Islamic countries.

All of this can be fact checked through reputable sources and I leave it to you do your own research.

I think we have to come to the end of our conversation. I don’t believe I have anything more to share with you. Thanks for engaging in this discussion. Take care.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Somnath

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vijayanagar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion