So, I was planning to share my inconsequential thoughts on a topic that has grabbed eyeballs and connected with recent happenings.
ARE SIKHS HINDUS OR NON-HINDUS?
Do read on, I hope you like the hook.

This question itself is wrong. Rather, it must be asked as to when and how a separate Sikh identity came to be. When is it that the Sikhs started seeing themselves as separate from Hindus?

A lot of such issues arise in India not because of Brahmin conspiracy (lol) or Sikh intransigence (lol) but because of something else. The whole idea that Sikhs are monotheistic, anti-idol worship etc, blah blah doesn't cut much ice because there are numerous "Hindu" religious...

bodies that have the same thing, even before AS. The issue arises because:
1. Unlike ME-based religions, in the East, religion traditionally tended to be more syncretic with overlaps.
2. Barring religious elites, popular religious practices were fuzzy and not clearly delineated

"Religion" as we understand today with clear cut divisions wasn't there for most part in non-Abrahamics.Thus, Hindus praying at Gurdwaras and Sehejdhari Sikhs.
Now bring the British (Protestant) with their penchant for classification and the coming of modernity.

1. Identities become important as they have important socioeconomic spin-offs.
2. Transition from folk/popular religion to a more literate and textual orientation.
Thus, the question cannot be answered without looking into the background.

Sikhism's birth took place in a syncretic milieu. Most, if not all, of Sikhism's theology is "Vedantic". (Not an expert and correct me if I am wrong). However, over due course, Sikhs have evolved a separate identity. If that's what they want, it needs to be respect.

On their part, Sikhs also need to give up their "stridency against Brahminism" etc. Both communities still intermarry to some extent and the average Sikh is no mujahid.
ENDS.