A central theme of Hindu revivalism movement was to show how Dharma is inherently different from Abrahamic religions. Unfortunately, this intellectual exercise which was much needed has produced several unintended consequences which may be detrimental.

We have now imbibed the idea that we are exact opposite of Abrahmics on everything under the sun and can't define ourselves without referring to what distinguishes us from Abrahamic on an issue. This doesn't help because we are confusing with unnecessary anchor.

While it's desirable in the comparative studies to illustrate the difference, we need to see us as ourselves without making references to Abrahmics. It's also observed that it has given birth to an intellectual laziness which dismisses everything by calling it Abrahamic.

It's good that the tiny minority of Hindu traditionalists don't carry this unnecessary baggage and explain the tradition as it's. For example, on the issue of validity of homosexual marriage, our side was busy saying how we are not Abrahmics and inclusive of everything.

They conveniently ignored the stance of Hindu tradition and Dharmashastra-s on it because they have to be exact opposite of Abrahmics. Now, they say that we should keep mum when our gods are abused because we are not Abrahmics and don't have the concept of blasphemy.

It's not desirable to fall in this trap. We should understand ourselves independently without bringing the irrelevant reference points in all the situations.