FYI: Hindus don't have scriptures. Brahmins have.

(Only 4% of Hindus are Brahmins).

Over two millennia, the 4% racists (self-identified as Aryans) gradually super-imposed their scriptures, Varna system, mythology, gods & temples over the gods, rituals, and traditions of 94% non-Aryans, using the power gained by assigning Kshatriya lineage to kings.

The brahmin imposition of casteist hierarchy met with stiff resistance, from Buddhism & Jainism in ancient India to medieval era social reformers/gurus/saints. Some rejected Vedic authority while others founded devotional (bhakti) sects blending brahmin & non-brahmin traditions.

Viewing the Indian spiritual geography via the lens of book-based religions, Persian/Arabic/European scholars & rulers wrote the history of "Hindoo religion/civilization" based on Brahmin priestly narratives, mistakenly assuming Brahmin scriptures to be equivalent to their own.

Colonial imagination of brahmin scripture-based "Hinduism" was internalized by "reformist" brahmins like Roy & Saraswati who began to "modernize" Hinduism" to please the sensibilities of their British masters(anti-paganism, pro-scripturism, universalism, Victorian morality, etc.)

The anticolonial freedom struggle gave birth to two strands - an inclusive Hinduism of UC liberal elites exposed to western edu & a communal Hindutva of a orthodox Brahmin supremacists. Both were based on problematic concept of "Hindu unity" centred on Brahmin scriptures/temples.

Socio/Anthro studies show a significant extent of social reality is a product of human imagination. So, however oppressive & erroneous be the imaginations of the past, they can't be brushed away as they constitute our present reality. How do we confront it? There are many ways.

To begin with, it is important to clarify what the term "Hinduism" means.

Often, both who uphold it & those who reject it tend to assume the term has a singular meaning.

But that isn't the case. It means different things to different people. This is the crux of the problem.

This is so complex an issue, I don't know where to begin.

I have some points to make, but I am thinking aloud here, hoping build further based on feedback.

One important factor to keep in mind the differences in woke usage, popular usage & scholarly usage.

Let me first consider the woke usage, of anti-caste activists who reject "Hinduism."

I began the thread rejecting it as imposed Brahmanism. At the same time I wonder how practical is my position.

The confusion arises from benign use of the term in popular & scholarly spaces.

In scholarly lit, term Hinduism is used in 4 common ways.
1. Uncritical: as if real.
2. Critical: as a construction.
3. Loose usage: to include all Indian traditions (in Religious Studies).
4. Lazy use: Using it as if real despite calling it a construction(Common in history)

Each of the above positions, from my woke Hinduism=Brahmanism POV,

1. Problematic, needs to be confronted.
2. Acceptable, but is it practical?
3. Acceptable, maybe more practical?
4. Extremely annoying, causes much mischief.

Sorry if that was vague, will explain later. Let's get to popular usage. This is the hardest to put in words.

I will focus more on the difficulties faced in approaching popular usage of Hinduism from the prism of woke anti-caste activism.

I'll start with some examples based on my encounters.

Case 1. UC North Indian.

Strongly anti-communal, differentiates Hinduism from Hindutva. But assumes everyone knows Hanuman Chalisa, assumes centrality of scriptures. Anti-casteism, but unaware of implicit Brahmanism.

Case 2: UC North Indian (anthropologist)

Religious, Arya Samaji.
Anti-communal, anti-casteist, feminist.
Aware of Brahmanism.
Implicitly assumes a unitary "Hindu" cosmology (implicit Brahmanism) refuses to believe some assumptions wrt patriarchy don't apply to South India.

Case 3: Tamil, Pillai

Atheist, Periyarist. Anti-Hindutva, anti-Modi.
Staunchly anti-Brahmin & anti-casteist.
Dravidianist. Tamil Nationalist. Anti-colonial.
Anti-Christianity (evangelism) Anti-Islam (sword theory) Not a Muslim/Christian hater.

Case 4: South Indian, obc

Religious & spiritual.
Anti-Hindutva, anti-Modi, anti-Brahminism, anti-casteism.
Wants to assert non-brahmin rituals.
But assumes some beliefs unproblematically Hindu (eg., holy cow).
Non-Islamophobic. But critical of Christianity (anti-evangelism).

Case 5: Mangalore, Jain.

Religious. Pro-RW/Modi, Islamophobic, does not personally hate Muslims.
Once heard a him giving rapturous account of a particular Azan for its musical quality.
Yaskhagana artist. Deep knowledge of mythology. Gives contradictory versions of dharma.

Case 6: Brahmin, Coastal KA.

Religious. Pro-Hindutva, Pro-Modi.
Beneficiary of embedded status, but non-casteist. Benevolent landlord. Treats workers with dignity.
Islamophobic, but non-hater, got into trouble with BJP for helping a Muslim!
Challenges commodified religiosity.

I can go on & on, but let me stop.

My point is to highlight the complexity of individual beliefs (Please share cases if you have).

My cousins who went to do karseva knew next to nothing wrt Brahmin scriptures/mythology.

I find woke assumption of 'Hinduism' too black & white.

Urgh, I've been thinking aloud without a plan.

Now I find myself in a soup as I realize I have demolished the argument I began with.

No idea how to proceed. I'll take a break, reflect & get back.
Look forward to ideas/suggestions on sorting out this existential dilemma.

To clarify, although I am against Brahmanical Hinduism, in practice there is much overlap of beliefs & practices. no thanx to a century of reformist UC Hinduism, made worse with spread of Sanghism post 90s.

We can't give up but we need to grapple with the complex reality first.