Most Hindutva thought is lazy because it rests its assumptions on “Neo-Sikhs”

This thread, for example, arbitrarily localizes Khalsa Raj as a local Punjabi political philosophy - when it explicitly was envisioned for the world. https://twitter.com/bhwootnath/status/1299267783109177345

Khalsa Raj was not seen as just a tidy arrangement inside an akhand-bharat; the assumption was that eventually, any type of akhand bharat would be ruled by Khalsa-Sikhs, and they’d go even beyond the scope of that geographical territory. https://twitter.com/JungNihang/status/1295779610932776968

The irony is that this thread perfectly exemplifies the original thread - which discussed limitations Hindutva has with understanding precolonial “Sanatan” thought.

What in the world is a “half-Hindu”? Is that someone who practices half “Hinduism” and half “Sikhism”?

What our dim friend meant to convey is that Ranjit Singh followed “Sanatan” Sikhi - which again, was a recontextualization of Dharmic thought meant in a universalist sense, not just a regional flavor of kesdhari+Shastardhari “Hinduism” from Punjab.

Again, the original [Amritsar] Singh Sabha founders - who explicitly politically supported a monarchist Khalsa Raj and focused on the revival of Sikh+Khalsa identity - were also Sanatani, and would be referred to as “half-Hindu”. It was them who I was discussing.

Hindutva ideologues:

“Sikhism by its nature has a very basic theology. Its sociological ideas also are very basic, and that's because it was never designed to be an alternative to Hindu systems.

It's just a spiritual outgrowth of a local type, like Lingayats in Karnataka.”

Precolonial, non-“Neo” Sikhs:

“The Temples and mosques will fall to the side as the Khalsa tisarpanth will rise and all will utter Akāl”

“The entire world, even the flowers and plants, will recite Japji and Anand Sahib”

“The Khalsa will take Delhi and beyond”