I split off the following from the previous post because its about this specifically
Johann, the current terms of our public discourse do not allow us to do that. Anything in Sanskrit, or from ancient India, evne if on secular subjects is termed religious/ Hindu.
In fact, someday you should read a good translation of the hymns which are enunciated at the time of the fire ceremony in marriages... eminently sensible (and secular) advice on getting along with your spouse, nary a reference to God
It should certainly be possible to do the same in Indian colleges and schools - to provide at least the framework of the history and traditions of Indian thought without necessarily taking it from a theological or religious angle that would violate the obligations of a publicly-funded institution.
Although it mostly semantic, it would make more sense to present it as ancient Indian civilisation's thought/history/culture, and therefore belonging to all rather than Hindu, and belonging to the majority and therefore avoid the endless politicised battles over what belongs to whom, and who is imposing religion on whom, etc.
Being taught who Aryabhatta was arguing with over what will not necessarily lead to increased Hindu textual literalism or increased politicisation or militancy over symbolic religious issues like Ayodhya or cow slaughter - in fact grounding in the diversity of the traditions of ancient Hindu/Indian debate and the strengths of its achievements could be just the innoculation against ill-defined sense of insecurity and the strong emotional reactions that come from it.
Remaking Hindus in to a new mold is not the same thing as familarising all Indians in the intellectual history and interaction of the many Indic traditions.
The core flaw of Hindutva or the tradition of political Hinduism founded by Savarkar is that it incorporates an envy of Islam's ruthlesness and insularity, and Islamism's ability to mobilise communities.
Rather than building on Hinduism's strengths, it tries in its toned down and limited fashion to borrow Islam's strength - the party line, and the intrinsic reliance on physical intimidation by other believers to prevent the flock from straying from it.
While Hindus like *all* human beings are capable of such behaviour, it is not part of Hindu philosophical tradition, and political Hinduism's attempt to incorporate it is self-defeating.
Savarkar wanted to create a 'new' Hindu, one who imitated the fierce sense of communal religious defence against the outsider in-built in to Islam while incorporating Western scientific, corporate and political dynamism.
It all starts with a belief that you dont have what it takes to survive.
Islam and Islamism is NOT going to inherit the earth.
Evangelical Christianity's challenge to Hinduism is quite different from that of Islam, but they are not going to win over India, let alone the world.