There's an internal tension within Hinduism about how shall it be primarily defined - a religious form or a cultural form? A community bound by shared history or the same ethical code?

The dispute between the civilizational nationalists and the orthodox religious is reflection of this same tension at the core of community.

If India is a civilizational state with Hindu ethos giving it that continuity, then the construction of 'Hindu' category aspires to be something like the Han.

That identity is flexible, you can't excommunicate people from a political identity, you can only exile them.

But if it's primarily a religious identity, then the ethical code and taboos are at the core. You aren't simply disgraced for violating them, your identity is revoked.

People who are arguing bitterly about whether Hinduism should be defined in expansive or restricted terms are talking past each other, because this problem is reflecting two big contemporary demands from Hinduism.

1. The aspiration that Hinduism should provide a cultural identity to India, both its future and the past. This is the Hindutva-oriented idea that demands an expansive definition.

2. The need for a cohesive community to face the challenges coming from other religions at social level, together. This calls for a clear-cut ingroup, a regimented identity, and hence a restrictive definition for Hinduism.

The argument about this definition is basically woven around these two demands being made on the religion right now.

By recognising that all Hindus share these aspirations and concerns, mutual ground can be explored towards finding a robust definition.

Might be of interest to @Anviksiki @TiwariNivedita @harshmadhusudan @ruchirsharma_1