The SC didn't define what a "way of life" meant because the purpose of that judgement was not to define "Hinduism". Which is why I don't understand why you even posted it, because it's not really relevant to this discussion.
The SC said that "Hinduism" could not be defined "narrowly", yet it also continued to use the term "religion" to describe Hindu practices.
When I was talking about "legal Hindus", I was talking about the people to whom the Act applies, which includes Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains as well as "Hindus". I am aware that the term "Hindu" itself was not defined there, but as far as the application of the law is concerned, even Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains would be considered "Hindus" (even if they don't consider themselves as such).
Why didn't you post this case first, instead of the irrelevant 1995 ruling?
Though even here, the SC doesn't actually define "Hinduism". The list of features you posted are so broad that most of them can be easily applied to several other religions.
I highly doubt you even know what a "leftist" or "rightist" is. The very use of these terms in the Indian context is stupid and meaningless.
And defeating invaders implies that some "butchering" occurs. It has nothing to do with "religious extremism". You can't defeat invaders by handing out rakhis and sweets.
The fact that Hindus remained submissive after invasions and bloodshed is a sign of weakness, not some great achievement. The fact that Buddhists in Burma have engaged in such bloodshed and genocidal behavior is unfortunate and I won't defend that, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Also, how in the world did you divine that Muslims are my "beloved", when many of my posts in this forum (even on this very thread) are against Islam? You self-proclaimed confused "Hindus" seem to think that anyone who doesn't like you must automatically love Muslims and Christians
I don't know what history 'we were talking about'. I don't recall mentioning a particular time frame when I made that statement. Societies change over time, and what is acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. Even Islamic society in the Middle Ages was much more liberal than it is now; in one of my posts on this thread I mentioned some atheist and rationalist philosophers of the Medieval Islamic world like Abul Ala Al-Ma'arri and Ibn al-Rawandi. There were scholars living in the Medieval Islamic World who could openly criticize Islam, but nowadays they would be persecuted for making such statements. Islamic society regressed over time and saw rationalism being replaced with religious dogma, whereas the West saw the opposite development (religious dogma being replaced with rationalism). And that is why the West is dominant today, while most of the modern Islamic World is a shithole.
Anyway, my point stands that Abrahamic societies need not engage in massacre of religious minorities, as the obvious example of America since the 18th century shows. Americans are overwhelmingly Christian (Abrahamic) and relatively religious, but there has never been persecution of religious minorities. You cannot change this fact regardless of whatever excuses you make.
The difference between countries like America and countries like Burma is that America is a well-established democracy where individual rights (incl. freedom of religion) are enshrined and enforced by Law (the Constitution), whereas Burma is an authoritarian dictatorship that persecutes its minorities. Any authoritarian dictatorship would be oppressive and not just one where Buddhists form the majority.
My statement is accurate. There may be a few odd exceptions, but overall social mingling between outcastes and upper castes was certainly not allowed by societal norms, until fairly recently. By "fairly recently", I mean since the last century.
Are you capable of understanding English? I am not saying that expulsion from caste means that someone ceases to be a "Hindu" (I don't even know what a "Hindu" is, remember?). I am saying that both Abrahamic and "Hindu" society have ways of punishing members that violate certain social/religious norms (like eating beef). Expulsion from caste is a way of punishing people for breaking certain religious "rules" (at least those that are accepted by the particular caste). Similarly, Abrahamic societies also punish people that break religious rules, such as by excommunication from the Church. So, I am saying that excommunication and expulsion from the caste are similar in this particular sense, i.e. as a way of punishing people.
As for the first bold sentence, I have already mentioned several times that my thread title is flawed and not precise enough, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up again.
The SC still continued to use the term "religion" to describe "Hinduism". This is what the SC said regarding the term "religion":
The SC indeed also says that definite rules/concepts cannot be applied to the term "Hindu". So here, the SC agrees with me that there is no real definition of "HInduism", and that it is largely a function of geography.
Many of my posts criticize and mock Christians and Muslims, so if I get a "sallery" (I guess you mean "salary". It is a word that even a 3rd standard kid should be able to spell properly) for doing this, then the joke is on them.
What I find really fascinating, however, is that many of you so-called "Hindus" automatically assume that anyone who dares to question or attack your "beliefs", must have some ulterior motive. You cannot fathom that a simple rationalist finds your beliefs worthy of nothing but disdain.
Are you actually serious?
The command hierarchy (General, Lt. General, Brigadier, etc.), unit organization (Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.), military drill and training, military ethos, basic military uniform, military classification, etc. etc. of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from the British/Western model.
As for our political system, I shouldn't need to go into detail there, because it should be obvious to anyone that our parliamentary democracy is based on that of Britain.
We didn't accept them because "we were slaves for long time", we accepted them because they were the best model available. India in the 1940s still had many semi-autonomous princely states run by traditional dynasties and using traditional methods of governance. As I said, we had the option of keeping all the maharajas and running India the good old traditional way. But hardly anyone considered that option, because it was retarded.
I give up. I seriously doubt you can comprehend English.
Good, so you agree that Muslim rule had nothing to do with the impoverishment of India?
Now explain to me why a tiny country like Spain (which was even smaller in medieval times, as it was divided into different kingdoms), which had just a tiny fraction of the population and resources of India, was able to thoroughly repulse Muslims, while a large number of Indians remained under Muslim rule for centuries.
You're a tool. You probably don't even know that Shivaji died in 1680 itself, which is 27 years before Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji played almost no role in the collapse of the Mughal Empire, which was a self-caused collapse caused by Aurangzeb's overstretching of the administration and failing political structures and institutions. The main targets of Aurangzeb's Deccan campaign was not even the Marathas, but the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda (ruled by Shi'as and hence perceived as kafirs by Aurangzeb).
You also still haven't answered by question regarding why the Nizam of Hyderabad (a second-rate monarch) was able to rule the districts of Aurangabad, Nanded, Beed, and Parbhani districts in Marathwada, just a few kilometers from Pune and the Maratha homeland itself. Why couldn't the great Marathas annex Hyderabad State, whose borders encroached right onto their heartland?
The British even lost a battle against the Zulus in 1879, who fought with spears against British riflemen. But what do a few cases like these show? The important fact is that the Marathas lost against the British in the end, and they could never make major gains against Mysore despite Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan fighting on multiple fronts against Marathas, Hyderabad, EIC, and in Kerala.
So you finally agree that Indians (Marathas) had poorer structures than the British? Good.
I cannot be a Hindu, because as I said before, I don't know what a "Hindu" is. How can I be something that I can't define?