Civilizations necessarily contain multitudes, usually incompatible forces which cannot easily form a viable, unified political ontology. This is why "civilization-states" are extremely brittle, they can break but never bend. For this reason they tend towards over-centralization

Hindutva ontologically "hindufies" because Indic civilisation in reality is too vast to be represented in a singular vision. It remains totally engrossed, negatively, with Abrahamism because without resentment against the other the gravitational pull of multiplicity is too strong

The consequence is that Hindutva is fundamentally an ideology of anti. In trying to capture everything it captures nothing, to resolve the contradiction at its heart it re-centres its enemies, so that it can have few conversations, regardless of topic, without disparaging others

In doing so it unwittingly recognises that civilisation as unifier is impossible without an Abrahamic - or western, or leftist - backdrop. It is vacuous, so it is dependent upon the continued presence of that which it wants to remove, without which it collapses into "in-fighting"

The consequence is an overbearing centre, but civilisational progress here would actually be an affirmation of multiplicity, to which the project of Hindutva is fundamentally antithetical. It will not accomplish renewal in any serious sense. The most it can do is reify stagnation